Proposed incone tax changes

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

What do people reckob of the proposed changes?

If i understand it right, its a tax cut for the lowest bands (effectively) but a rise fir anyone earning over 33k and somr new bands.

In the context that a tax rise seemed inevitable, it seems not a bad compromise - however im not sure i agree with cutting lower earning people's taxes - i get ghe rationale for raising taxes, and am prepared to give it a chance to see if it works, but given that rationale im not sure that cutting taxes will work.

Politically its a bit of a gamble, as it is simply increasing tge tax burden onto the middle class - but equally scotlabd has a lot of public sector workers, so fhe effects might not be that bad.

Also is an effective fundig cut for councils.

Given our economic performance is now half as good the UK average, we certainly need to do something to get things moving. Will this be it?

[CropleyWasGod]

What do people reckob of the proposed changes?

If i understand it right, its a tax cut for the lowest bands (effectively) but a rise fir anyone earning over 33k and somr new bands.

In the context that a tax rise seemed inevitable, it seems not a bad compromise - however im not sure i agree with cutting people's taxes - i get ghe rationale for raising taxes, and am prepared to give it a chance to see if it works, but given that rationale im not sure that cutting taxes will work.

Also is an effective fundig cut for councils.

Given our economic performance is now half as good the UK average, we certainly need to do something to get things moving. Will this be it?

Not sure where they're getting the £33k from. By my calculations, everyone earning over £26k pays more. Everyone under pays less.

[Slavers]

I'm not happy at the tax rise its taking more of people's money to be squandered by the government. They should be looking to make things more efficient and increase productivity before stealing from people's pockets.

[ronaldo7]

Private schools in Scotland lose their charitable status and tax relief. About time too. :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm not happy at the tax rise its taking more of people's money to be squandered by the government. They should be looking to make things more efficient and increase productivity before stealing from people's pockets.What power does a Government have over efficiency and productivity?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

Not sure where they're getting the £33k from. By my calculations, everyone earning over £26k pays more. Everyone under pays less.

New 19p tax rate? :dunno:

21p rate will apply from £24k but the starter rate of 19p for <£13850 essentially negates it for anyone under £33k

[CropleyWasGod]

New 19p tax rate? :dunno:Others are now saying the same as me.

I'm thinking that they mean "if you earn over 33k you'll pay more"...which is interpreted as "if you earn less than that, you'll pay less".

That's not the case... between 26k and 33k you pay marginally more.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

Others are now saying the same as me.

I'm thinking that they mean "if you earn over 33k you'll pay more"...which is interpreted as "if you earn less than that, you'll pay less".

That's not the case... between 26k and 33k you pay marginally more.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

:aok:

I saw something else about £50k earners paying less. They might iron it out after the greens have a word.

[ancient hibee]

Could it be that they have deducted the personal allowances and then issued calculations?

[Slavers]

What power does a Government have over efficiency and productivity?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Well council workers they get paid more for their efforts than private industry employees at a similar level of career. Big cushy pensions for government staff and members of parliament etc.

The pay overweight nursing staff that cant do their job efficiently.

They give free bus passes to people who are over 60 but the retirement age is 65. They hand out free prescriptions, free doctors appointments that are missed wasting lots of time, money and effort from doctors.

[CropleyWasGod]

Well council workers they get paid more for their efforts than private industry employees at a similar level of career. Big cushy pensions for government staff and members of parliament etc.

The pay overweight nursing staff that cant do their job efficiently.

They give free bus passes to people who are over 60 but the retirement age is 65. They hand out free prescriptions, free doctors appointments that are missed wasting lots of time, money and effort from doctors.So your point is less about efficiency and productivity, and more about perceived waste.

I'll give you the bus passes. But prescription charges...if you wanted to means-test them, the admin costs would outweigh the savings.

Are you sure about the private sector being less well-paid than the public one?

And overweight nurses???.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[lucky]

About time this happened, hopefully there will more progressive taxation in the future. Like stopping the scrapping of airport duty. For the record I’m around a grand worse off under these proposals.

[lucky]

Well council workers they get paid more for their efforts than private industry employees at a similar level of career. Big cushy pensions for government staff and members of parliament etc.

The pay overweight nursing staff that cant do their job efficiently.

They give free bus passes to people who are over 60 but the retirement age is 65. They hand out free prescriptions, free doctors appointments that are missed wasting lots of time, money and effort from doctors.

Some dross in your post. Most council workers have suffered pay cuts over the last few years. As for their pensions they are not cushy.

What has the weight of nursing staff got to do with their pay. The NHS must remain free at the point of need. The only point which might have some merit is bus passes at 60 which in minimum of 5 years before retirement age.

[PiemanP]

I’m a higher rate taxpayer. I don’t see why I should pay more tax than someone in an equivalent job with the same salary in say Newcastle or Birmingham.

Middle earners are already taxed highly (higher in Scotland than rest of uk even before these changes!) and contribute a very high proportion of the overall income tax revenue, quite frankly I think we contribute enough.

Also the middle earners tend to be the more money savvy section of the population, so I doubt the government will get the full revenue benefits they forecast from these changes. For example I am simply going to up my pension contributions enough that it offsets the tax increase - result is government doesn’t get a penny extra.

This just drives a further wedge between Scotland the rest of the UK, which is the SNP’s aim. I think this one will hurt them at the ballot box.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I’m a higher rate taxpayer. I don’t see why I should pay more tax than someone in an equivalent job with the same salary in say Newcastle or Birmingham.

Middle earners are already taxed highly (higher in Scotland than rest of uk even before these changes!) and contribute a very high proportion of the overall income tax revenue, quite frankly I think we contribute enough.

Also the middle earners tend to be the more money savvy section of the population, so I doubt the government will get the full revenue benefits they forecast from these changes. For example I am simply going to up my pension contributions enough that it offsets the tax increase - result is government doesn’t get a penny extra.

This just drives a further wedge between Scotland the rest of the UK, which is the SNP’s aim. I think this one will hurt them at the ballot box.

Its the point in devolution though- i dont have a problem with the Scottish Govt doing something different from ruk - my only concern is whether it will work.

Your point about middle classes seeking more tax avoidance is very valid. Im thinking about self employment in the future, partly because it wouls hugely reduce my tax. Likewise, your point about the pension contributions.

Tax is difficult, and i do wonder if risking being seen to be punishing those that do well, is actually good politics.

But im happy to give the nats the benfot of the doubt - they are trying something, lets see if it works or not.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Private schools in Scotland lose their charitable status and tax relief. About time too. :greengrin

Absolutely. How on earth can private schools claim to be charities? That yin sounds suspiciously like legislators of the past protecting their self-interest.

A more progressive tax system is most welcome. I haven't seen the figures and don't know how it will affect me, but, if I pay a few quid more for a better social system, that's fine.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I’m a higher rate taxpayer. I don’t see why I should pay more tax than someone in an equivalent job with the same salary in say Newcastle or Birmingham.

Middle earners are already taxed highly (higher in Scotland than rest of uk even before these changes!) and contribute a very high proportion of the overall income tax revenue, quite frankly I think we contribute enough.

Also the middle earners tend to be the more money savvy section of the population, so I doubt the government will get the full revenue benefits they forecast from these changes. For example I am simply going to up my pension contributions enough that it offsets the tax increase - result is government doesn’t get a penny extra.

This just drives a further wedge between Scotland the rest of the UK, which is the SNP’s aim. I think this one will hurt them at the ballot box.

Because it's a devolved issue, and Scotland democratically voted for devolution. I actually think it might boost their support, given the opinion polls consistently say Scots wants a more egalitarian society. If they can show what's being done with the extra revenue for the good of society, I think most Scots will welcome it.

[Beefster]

How on earth can private schools claim to be charities?

By providing funded places to kids from families who otherwise couldn’t afford it.

[Hibernia&Alba]

By providing funded places to kids from families who otherwise couldn’t afford it.

But we have a state sector that's free to all. It isn't as if children who don't go to private school can't get an education. Charitable status is a tax fiddle for cash rich private schools.

[Jay]

Well council workers they get paid more for their efforts than private industry employees at a similar level of career. Big cushy pensions for government staff and members of parliament etc.

The pay overweight nursing staff that cant do their job efficiently.

They give free bus passes to people who are over 60 but the retirement age is 65. They hand out free prescriptions, free doctors appointments that are missed wasting lots of time, money and effort from doctors.

They pay overweight nursing staff? Please tell me your on the wind up! If ever there was a post that made me want to scream this is it. You have absolutely no idea.

[Beefster]

But we have a state sector that's free to all. It isn't as if children who don't go to private school can't get an education. Charitable status is a tax fiddle for cash rich private schools.

That’s all great but I was just answering your question on how they can claim to be charitable.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I’m a higher rate taxpayer. I don’t see why I should pay more tax than someone in an equivalent job with the same salary in say Newcastle or Birmingham.

Middle earners are already taxed highly (higher in Scotland than rest of uk even before these changes!) and contribute a very high proportion of the overall income tax revenue, quite frankly I think we contribute enough.

Also the middle earners tend to be the more money savvy section of the population, so I doubt the government will get the full revenue benefits they forecast from these changes. For example I am simply going to up my pension contributions enough that it offsets the tax increase - result is government doesn’t get a penny extra.

This just drives a further wedge between Scotland the rest of the UK, which is the SNP’s aim. I think this one will hurt them at the ballot box.

I'd rather pay a little bit more to maintain free university education, free prescriptions, an NHS that is outperforming the rUK and many of the other benefits we enjoy up here.

Also, on paying more up here, income tax is only a portion of the total tax we pay. Council tax and water charges are higher in England than Scotland.

[Hibernia&Alba]

That’s all great but I was just answering your question on how they can claim to be charitable.

Fair enough

[-Jonesy-]

I'm not happy at the tax rise its taking more of people's money to be squandered by the government. They should be looking to make things more efficient and increase productivity before stealing from people's pockets.

This opinion has been brought to you by Viscount Rothermere, Daily Mail Ltd

[Eyrie]

But we have a state sector that's free to all. It isn't as if children who don't go to private school can't get an education. Charitable status is a tax fiddle for cash rich private schools.

My father was a plasterer and my mother a receptionist, but I went to a private secondary school because it was a charity that offered me a bursary.

Take away the charitable status and kids like me couldn't attend such schools, making them even more elitist than you perceive. That means that fees will go up and fewer people can afford to send their kids there. So those kids will attend the local state school, which will put more pressure on an already underfunded state sector. The few million raised in tax will turn out to be less than the increased cost of educating the kids who are denied free places in the charitable sector.

The solution isn't to re-write the rules on what is a charity to suit a narrow political agenda but to provide proper funding for the state sector and focus on raising standards in the state sector. Of course, real fairness like that would involve some hard decisions about taxes and teaching methods, so politicians will shy away from addressing the genuine problem in favour of cheap headlines that will do nothing to improve the standard of education for the vast majority of children in this country.

[ronaldo7]

My father was a plasterer and my mother a receptionist, but I went to a private secondary school because it was a charity that offered me a bursary.

Take away the charitable status and kids like me couldn't attend such schools, making them even more elitist than you perceive. That means that fees will go up and fewer people can afford to send their kids there. So those kids will attend the local state school, which will put more pressure on an already underfunded state sector. The few million raised in tax will turn out to be less than the increased cost of educating the kids who are denied free places in the charitable sector.

The solution isn't to re-write the rules on what is a charity to suit a narrow political agenda but to provide proper funding for the state sector and focus on raising standards in the state sector. Of course, real fairness like that would involve some hard decisions about taxes and teaching methods, so politicians will shy away from addressing the genuine problem in favour of cheap headlines that will do nothing to improve the standard of education for the vast majority of children in this country.

I'm sure the Barclay review took this into consideration when making their recommendations. I think all parties had parts of the review they agreed with.

[ancient hibee]

But we have a state sector that's free to all. It isn't as if children who don't go to private school can't get an education. Charitable status is a tax fiddle for cash rich private schools.
What you mean is it’s free at the point of delivery.It’s anything but free at aroundsix grand per kid .

[steakbake]

I pay upper rate. No problems at all paying an extra tenner a month.

The moaning on behalf of the middle classes in newspapers and by Tories is absolute nonsense. If a tax rise from £6 to 8.33 a month is going to break the bank, you must be terrible at your household finances. If you're on 150k a year, you'll have £140 less from your £7500 take-home.

It's about time there was some tax differentiation. This is a good start.

[danhibees1875]

I think I've messed up my initial calculations. Does anyone else got it to be:

£0-33k earners pay less tax
£33-43k earners pay more tax
£44-58k pay less tax
£58k plus pay more tax

I think there are arguements for paying more tax and for why Scotland should pay more tax, so generally I think paying more is fine. I'm happy to contribute a bit
more towards the benefits we enjoy.

[Pete]

I'm not happy at the tax rise its taking more of people's money to be squandered by the government. They should be looking to make things more efficient and increase productivity before stealing from people's pockets.


Well council workers they get paid more for their efforts than private industry employees at a similar level of career. Big cushy pensions for government staff and members of parliament etc.

The pay overweight nursing staff that cant do their job efficiently.

They give free bus passes to people who are over 60 but the retirement age is 65. They hand out free prescriptions, free doctors appointments that are missed wasting lots of time, money and effort from doctors.

The fact that you consider taxes something that are stolen by the state, only to be squandered in an inefficient manner suggests where you are on the political spectrum. Your repulsive, unnecessary comment about public sector workers that are under more pressure than you can probably imagine confirms it. After years of privatisation, cuts and pressure on them to do a lot more with a lot less, you've no right to call anyone working in the NHS "inefficient".

As for the private/public sector comparison, maybe you should look at things the other way. Maybe these public sector workers are getting a fair deal and the private sector workers are getting ripped off as far as "benefits" go due to rampant competition and the quest for ever increasing efficiency.

I'm all for the rich paying more tax...in fact I don't see why the lower earners shouldn't pay a bit as well, provided the the trade-off is less economic pressure regarding their necessities such as housing, utilities, transport etc..something a proper state can provide fir everyone's benefit.

There are societies out there where proper wealth distribution means people in general are happier but we're still more "Screw you, I'm alright Jack" than "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

[CropleyWasGod]

I think I've messed up my initial calculations. Does anyone else got it to be:

£0-33k earners pay less tax
£33-43k earners pay more tax
£44-58k pay less tax
£58k plus pay more tax

I think there are arguements for paying more tax and for why Scotland should pay more tax, so generally I think paying more is fine. I'm happy to contribute a bit
more towards the benefits we enjoy.Up to 26k pay less.

26 to 33k pay slightly more, but not significantly.

Over 33k pay significantly more.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[stoneyburn hibs]

It's progressive in the face of a cut in our pocket money. My household will be financially worse off but it'll be basically nothing that we'll notice.
The Scottish government could have sat on their hands and done nothing, their being proactive in trying to create growth in the Scottish economy.

[ronaldo7]

In my haste, looking at the budget yesterday, I mentioned that private schools will lose their charitable status. They will actually keep their charitable status, but lose the ability for tax relief. This brings them into line with public schools, on rates.

No more reduction or exemption from rates anymore.

I'm sure, if, as a charity, they want to continue with their bursary scheme. They are free to do so. :aok:

[danhibees1875]

Up to 26k pay less.

26 to 33k pay slightly more, but not significantly.

Over 33k pay significantly more.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Cheers! Out of interest, where am I going wrong with the below:

£45k earner previously would have been taxed:

0% on 11,500
20% on 31,500 = 6,300
40% on 2,000 = 800

Total tax bill = 7,100


Now they'll pay

0% on 11,850
19% on 2000 = 380
20% on 10,150 = 2,030
21% on 20,273 = 4,257
41% on 727 = 298

Total tax bill = 6,965.

[ronaldo7]

I’m a higher rate taxpayer. I don’t see why I should pay more tax than someone in an equivalent job with the same salary in say Newcastle or Birmingham.

Middle earners are already taxed highly (higher in Scotland than rest of uk even before these changes!) and contribute a very high proportion of the overall income tax revenue, quite frankly I think we contribute enough.

Also the middle earners tend to be the more money savvy section of the population, so I doubt the government will get the full revenue benefits they forecast from these changes. For example I am simply going to up my pension contributions enough that it offsets the tax increase - result is government doesn’t get a penny extra.

This just drives a further wedge between Scotland the rest of the UK, which is the SNP’s aim. I think this one will hurt them at the ballot box.

The "NEW" Scottish fiscal commission have already worked the numbers to take into consideration people, like yourself, making the decision to move money, or to put it into their pension pot. The extra tax take would have been over £210m, and instead they have only budgeted for £160m extra.

The response today, from most, I have discussed the budget with, is positivity, unless you read the Daily Mail. :wink:

https://twitter.com/i/moments/941599542188834821

[JeMeSouviens]

Cheers! Out of interest, where am I going wrong with the below:

£45k earner previously would have been taxed:

0% on 11,500
20% on 31,500 = 6,300
40% on 2,000 = 800

Total tax bill = 7,100


Now they'll pay

0% on 11,850
19% on 2000 = 380
20% on 10,150 = 2,030
21% on 20,273 = 4,257
41% on 727 = 298

Total tax bill = 6,965.

I think you're right. Your figures are vs what we paid in Scotland last year. CWG's are vs what rUK will pay from next year.

[danhibees1875]

I think you're right. Your figures are vs what we paid in Scotland last year. CWG's are vs what rUK will pay from next year.

That would explain it. :aok:

[Geo_1875]

I'll be paying more and I'm quite happy to do so if it helps maintain essential services to the less well off.

[RyeSloan]

Seems to me that with the movement of the tax thresholds upwards that really the vast majority of people will be paying very little extra.

A classic SNP fudge...look progressive, sound like they are doing something but ultimately they have done very very little.

Add in the public sector wage rises and I wouldn't be surprised to see the increased tax income simply going to paying higher wages.

[easty]

Add in the public sector wage rises and I wouldn't be surprised to see the increased tax income simply going to paying higher wages.

I don't know if that's the case or not, but what would be wrong with that? The wages have to be paid from somewhere.

[JeMeSouviens]

Re thread title - I always get my ice cream in a tub anyway. :na na:

[RyeSloan]

I don't know if that's the case or not, but what would be wrong with that? The wages have to be paid from somewhere.

I appreciate that but a flat 2% rise would be a net cost of over £200m so greater than the £164m the tax rises are estimated to generate so it could be argued that tax has been raised to fund wage increases in the public sector.

Yet we are told the tax rises were to protect services, support the economy and tackle inequality which is patently not the case (and a bit of a stretch for a mere £164m anyway!)

As I said above these changes are not really changing anything and you need to earn about £75k to even pay more than £10 a month more. Even stranger is that if you earn about £50k you actually gain (although anyone earning over c£30k will pay more in Scotland than they would in rUK)

[RyeSloan]

About time this happened, hopefully there will more progressive taxation in the future. Like stopping the scrapping of airport duty. For the record I’m around a grand worse off under these proposals.

Lucky, you will need to earning almost £150k to lose out to the tune of £1,000 under these proposals...unless of course you are comparing to rUK income tax rates where those earning c£80k will be paying about £1k more a year in income tax.

[patch1875]

I’m going to lose out as I pay a higher rate also our daughter is privately educated so that will have an impact at some point they don’t currently need much encouragement to put the fees up anyway 😀

[Geo_1875]

I’m going to lose out as I pay a higher rate also our daughter is privately educated so that will have an impact at some point they don’t currently need much encouragement to put the fees up anyway 😀

Just send her to a Scottish University when she leaves school and you're quids in.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I don't know if that's the case or not, but what would be wrong with that? The wages have to be paid from somewhere.

I suppose tge theory would be that the taxpayer will get no benefit i.e. improved services for that extra money.

[Geo_1875]

I suppose tge theory would be that the taxpayer will get no benefit i.e. improved services for that extra money.

They might get improved services from better motivated staff.

[JeMeSouviens]

They might get improved services from better motivated staff.

:agree:

Public sector may find recruitment/retention of key staff a little easier as well.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

They might get improved services from better motivated staff.

Hopefully - like i said im prepared to see how it works, amd hopefully there will be a resultant gain in public service productivity as a result. If not, i think we would have to say this approach hasnt worked.

But i think its worth giving a try, given our poor economic growth at the moment.

[Hibernia&Alba]

What you mean is it’s free at the point of delivery.It’s anything but free at aroundsix grand per kid .
Of course I meant free at the point of delivery. We all contribute when earning, just as we all benefitted as children. The fact we also have free university education is something I'm very proud of. Education is the most important component of social mobility and, perhaps even more importantly, a fulfilled life, IMO.

[Hibernia&Alba]

My father was a plasterer and my mother a receptionist, but I went to a private secondary school because it was a charity that offered me a bursary.

Take away the charitable status and kids like me couldn't attend such schools, making them even more elitist than you perceive. That means that fees will go up and fewer people can afford to send their kids there. So those kids will attend the local state school, which will put more pressure on an already underfunded state sector. The few million raised in tax will turn out to be less than the increased cost of educating the kids who are denied free places in the charitable sector.

The solution isn't to re-write the rules on what is a charity to suit a narrow political agenda but to provide proper funding for the state sector and focus on raising standards in the state sector. Of course, real fairness like that would involve some hard decisions about taxes and teaching methods, so politicians will shy away from addressing the genuine problem in favour of cheap headlines that will do nothing to improve the standard of education for the vast majority of children in this country.

The part in bold I fully agree with. We shouldn't, however, be worrying about fewer bursaries to private schools. The aim must be to make public education just as good, and in many cases it is, despite the fact they have far less money per pupil. I attended an inner city comprehensive during the seventeen year Tory rule of Thatcher and Major - a time when schools were under severe funding pressures - but I couldn't have wished for better teachers. Such people are the real heroes of our society. Parents with modest means should never have to worry that a bursary to a private school is the only hope their children have of a good education. Private schools are not charities; 95per cent of the population receive as state education, and I fully agree, that's where we should be trying to ensure every child has access to a high quality education.

[JeMeSouviens]

My father was a plasterer and my mother a receptionist, but I went to a private secondary school because it was a charity that offered me a bursary.

Take away the charitable status and kids like me couldn't attend such schools, making them even more elitist than you perceive. That means that fees will go up and fewer people can afford to send their kids there. So those kids will attend the local state school, which will put more pressure on an already underfunded state sector. The few million raised in tax will turn out to be less than the increased cost of educating the kids who are denied free places in the charitable sector.

The solution isn't to re-write the rules on what is a charity to suit a narrow political agenda but to provide proper funding for the state sector and focus on raising standards in the state sector. Of course, real fairness like that would involve some hard decisions about taxes and teaching methods, so politicians will shy away from addressing the genuine problem in favour of cheap headlines that will do nothing to improve the standard of education for the vast majority of children in this country.

On the contrary, that will give the state schools a better mix of pupils from all backgrounds, including those of higher ability (who could get the bursary) and those with more committed, aspirational parents who will get involved in the school. The positive effects of these things on state schools shouldn't be underestimated.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

The part in bold I fully agree with. We shouldn't, however, be worrying about fewer bursaries to private schools. The aim must be to make public education just as good, and in many cases it is, despite the fact they have far less money per pupil. I attended an inner city comprehensive during the seventeen year Tory rule of Thatcher and Major - a time when schools were under severe funding pressures - but I couldn't have wished for better teachers. Such people are the real heroes of our society. Parents with modest means should never have to worry that a bursary to a private school is the only hope their children have of a good education. Private schools are not charities; 95per cent of the population receive as state education, and I fully agree, that's where we should be trying to ensure every child has access to a high quality education.

I believe a quarter of all pupils in edinburgh are privately educated.

[Jack]

I believe a quarter of all pupils in edinburgh are privately educated.

But only 4% in Scotland.

[Hibernia&Alba]

But only 4% in Scotland.

And only five per cent in the UK as a whole. A quarter of all kids in Edinburgh being privately educated sounds incredibly high.

[Jack]

And only five per cent in the UK as a whole. A quarter of all kids in Edinburgh being privately educated sounds incredibly high.

Without looking it up I'd say it's probably correct. There's a lot of them in Edinburgh.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Without looking it up I'd say it's probably correct. There's a lot of them in Edinburgh.

They obviously didn't grow up in Leith in the 1980s/90s. We didn't have the money to pay the milkman, let alone school fees. We didn't know anybody who had money. It was the fantastic teachers I had who gave me a platform to get to university.

[lucky]

Lucky, you will need to earning almost £150k to lose out to the tune of £1,000 under these proposals...unless of course you are comparing to rUK income tax rates where those earning c£80k will be paying about £1k more a year in income tax.

I think I know how much I earn and how much I’m going to contribute to the government. But thanks for the advice

[patch1875]

Edinburgh is about 25%.

My daughters school had 36 bursaries given last year.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Edinburgh is about 25%.

My daughters school had 36 bursaries given last year.

So your daughter attends private school? If it isn't too personal a question, how much are the school fees?

[RyeSloan]

I think I know how much I earn and how much I’m going to contribute to the government. But thanks for the advice

Anytime [emoji12]

[patch1875]

So your daughter attends private school? If it isn't too personal a question, how much are the school fees?

It’s around 9.5k a year but extras might add another 1-1.5k I reckon.

We’re really happy we done it,she’s loves it and the opportunities really are superb.

[Hibernia&Alba]

It’s around 9.5k a year but extras might add another 1-1.5k I reckon.

We’re really happy we done it,she’s loves it and the opportunities really are superb.

As a dyed in the wool socialist, around £10,000 per year just on school fees makes me think of the 99 per cent of parents who will never have that kind of spare cash. Clearly you believe there is some advantage to be gained from paying that much each year, but very few can afford to purchase such an advantage, though their children deserve an education of equal quality. A truly meritocratic system doesn't require accident of birth in determining educational standards. Those who went to private/public school still dominate in politics, law, business; all the establishment professions, but, if those people had been born in poverty in the inner cities, very few of them would be in those positions. Our capacity for achievement should never be determined by who our parents are.

[stoneyburn hibs]

As a dyed in the wool socialist, around £10,000 per year just on school fees makes me think of the 99 per cent of parents who will never have that kind of spare cash. Clearly you believe there is some advantage to be gained from paying that much each year, but very few can afford to purchase such an advantage, though their children deserve an education of equal quality. A truly meritocratic system doesn't require accident of birth in determining educational standards. Those who went to private/public school still dominate in politics, law, business; all the establishment professions, but, if those people had been born in poverty in the inner cities, very few of them would be in those positions. Our capacity for achievement should never be determined by who our parents are.

My thoughts, you posted it so eloquently.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

As a dyed in the wool socialist, around £10,000 per year just on school fees makes me think of the 99 per cent of parents who will never have that kind of spare cash. Clearly you believe there is some advantage to be gained from paying that much each year, but very few can afford to purchase such an advantage, though their children deserve an education of equal quality. A truly meritocratic system doesn't require accident of birth in determining educational standards. Those who went to private/public school still dominate in politics, law, business; all the establishment professions, but, if those people had been born in poverty in the inner cities, very few of them would be in those positions. Our capacity for achievement should never be determined by who our parents are.

I fine idea, but it can never work. In the same way that jeremy corbyn's son has a senior position in the laboir party working for john mcdonnell - its human nature to help out friends, to work with people you know and like and trust. Or closer to home, why for exampke the former president of the SNPs son was a senior staffer for the party, or why Oliver Mundell has risen to become a tory MSP.

Its one of the reasons socialism never works, because all you are doing is tryimg to replacing one set of highheidyins with another.

Its why liberalism is so much more preferable than socialism - so that people are free to make choices and others will let them get on with it. If someone wants to pay for private education, what business is it of anyone else?

[CapitalGreen]

I think I know how much I earn and how much I’m going to contribute to the government. But thanks for the advice

Baller 🤑

[Hibernia&Alba]

I fine idea, but it can never work. In the same way that jeremy corbyn's son has a senior position in the laboir party working for john mcdonnell - its human nature to help out friends, to work with people you know and like and trust. Or closer to home, why for exampke the former president of the SNPs son was a senior staffer for the party, or why Oliver Mundell has risen to become a tory MSP.

Its one of the reasons socialism never works, because all you are doing is tryimg to replacing one set of highheidyins with another.

Its why liberalism is so much more preferable than socialism - so that people are free to make choices and others will let them get on with it. If someone wants to pay for private education, what business is it of anyone else?

You miss my point. If anybody wishes to pay for private schools for their children, that is entirely their business. The issue is what about the children of the overwhelming majority who don't have £10,000 per year per child to spare? Free schooling at the point of delivery is an entirely socialistic concept, so it does work. We all get an education regardless of the income of our parents, and the same goes for health care via the NHS. These two public services are great examples of socialism in action. Once upon a time the vast majority didn't have access to schooling and health care; it's through collective action, through socialist principles, that we have a more educated and healthier population. There is no such thing as totally free choice. We don't give a child the choice of whether they should attend school; we force them to go because we know it will improve their lives. Getting an education or life saving health services isn't a matter of choice; we are not consumers in these areas, for they are public goods which are priceless in their benefits to the individual and society. Furthermore, our choices are dictated by our ability to make an informed decision, which is only possible when we have the capacity to make said choices, and which in turn requires an educated citizen.

[Pete]

I fine idea, but it can never work. In the same way that jeremy corbyn's son has a senior position in the laboir party working for john mcdonnell - its human nature to help out friends, to work with people you know and like and trust. Or closer to home, why for exampke the former president of the SNPs son was a senior staffer for the party, or why Oliver Mundell has risen to become a tory MSP.

Its one of the reasons socialism never works, because all you are doing is tryimg to replacing one set of highheidyins with another.

Its why liberalism is so much more preferable than socialism - so that people are free to make choices and others will let them get on with it. If someone wants to pay for private education, what business is it of anyone else?

I'm glad there are loads of people out there with a less dim view of human nature than yours, which basically amount to: "Deep down we're all self-centred, selfish ****s who look after ourselves first so it's every man for himself".:wink:

As for why you think socialism never works, I think you can find a lot of these traits listed above in the liberal regimes that have historically interfered in the business of countries where they prioritised proper wealth distribution.

[Pete]

You miss my point. If anybody wishes to pay for private schools for their children, that is entirely their business. The issue is what about the children of the overwhelming majority who don't have £10,000 per year per child to spare? Free schooling at the point of delivery is an entirely socialistic concept, so it does work. We all get an education regardless of the income of our parents, and the same goes for health care via the NHS. These two public services are great examples of socialism in action. Once upon a time the vast majority didn't have access to schooling and health care; it's through collective action, through socialist principles, that we have a more educated and healthier population. There is no such thing as totally free choice. We don't give a child the choice of whether they should attend school; we force them to go because we know it will improve their lives. Getting an education or life saving health services isn't a matter of choice; we are not consumers in these areas, for they are public goods which are priceless in their benefits to the individual and society. Furthermore, our choices are dictated by our ability to make an informed decision, which is only possible when we have the capacity to make said choices, and which in turn requires an educated citizen.

:top marks

[Hibrandenburg]

I fine idea, but it can never work. In the same way that jeremy corbyn's son has a senior position in the laboir party working for john mcdonnell - its human nature to help out friends, to work with people you know and like and trust. Or closer to home, why for exampke the former president of the SNPs son was a senior staffer for the party, or why Oliver Mundell has risen to become a tory MSP.

Its one of the reasons socialism never works, because all you are doing is tryimg to replacing one set of highheidyins with another.

Its why liberalism is so much more preferable than socialism - so that people are free to make choices and others will let them get on with it. If someone wants to pay for private education, what business is it of anyone else?

It's in some people's nature to be self centred and egoistic. I'd wager that most people value fairness and equality more but maybe we're just both projecting our own values on society. :wink:

[Hibrandenburg]

As a dyed in the wool socialist, around £10,000 per year just on school fees makes me think of the 99 per cent of parents who will never have that kind of spare cash. Clearly you believe there is some advantage to be gained from paying that much each year, but very few can afford to purchase such an advantage, though their children deserve an education of equal quality. A truly meritocratic system doesn't require accident of birth in determining educational standards. Those who went to private/public school still dominate in politics, law, business; all the establishment professions, but, if those people had been born in poverty in the inner cities, very few of them would be in those positions. Our capacity for achievement should never be determined by who our parents are.

Strangely enough, here in Germany where the social divide is not expanded by an inherited class system to the same degree as in the UK, the state schools in many areas outperform their private competitors. Around 9% of German kids attend private schools but don't enjoy the same kind of head start and advantages that their British counterparts do. This is down to several factors including funding but also that for teachers it has been traditionally more beneficial and attractive for them to work in the state system rather than the private one, meaning the state schools get first choice of the best teachers and the private schools have to make do with the best of the rest. The main attraction for teachers in the state system was that they were awarded "Beamten" (civil servant) status and all the benefits that that carried. Unfortunately this is slowly being phased out and may see the tables turned.

[Moulin Yarns]

Maybe, just maybe, if those privileged few that are willing to send their kids to private (public) schools at £9,000 a year were to pay the same to the local authorities education budgets we would see an improvement in the attainment gap. But they only want to 'improve' their own children's prospects and not others.

#justsayin'

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You miss my point. If anybody wishes to pay for private schools for their children, that is entirely their business. The issue is what about the children of the overwhelming majority who don't have £10,000 per year per child to spare? Free schooling at the point of delivery is an entirely socialistic concept, so it does work. We all get an education regardless of the income of our parents, and the same goes for health care via the NHS. These two public services are great examples of socialism in action. Once upon a time the vast majority didn't have access to schooling and health care; it's through collective action, through socialist principles, that we have a more educated and healthier population. There is no such thing as totally free choice. We don't give a child the choice of whether they should attend school; we force them to go because we know it will improve their lives. Getting an education or life saving health services isn't a matter of choice; we are not consumers in these areas, for they are public goods which are priceless in their benefits to the individual and society. Furthermore, our choices are dictated by our ability to make an informed decision, which is only possible when we have the capacity to make said choices, and which in turn requires an educated citizen.

My history is a bit woozy, but does public education in scotland not pre-date socialism by some distance? Id always thought it was more ofna religious priciple in keeping with prebyterian values of self reliance and taling responsibility for oneself - but others will know more about that than me, not being a presbyterian!

Apologies for missing your point, i thought you wete arguing against private education. As far as i saw on this thread, nobody is arguing against universal education - certainlu not me, given i am a product of it (although i got caught in the shoet lived student fees / graduate endowment in scotland, and also had to self fund my post-grad studies).

Which, to bring it back to this thread, is thw whole point of a good universal educatiob system, is to equip people to succeed in life - to get a job they want, to help them do well, and to provide for them a means to sustain themselves and their family.

Lots of my mates took advantage of this amazing benefit, amd have done really well. Some didnt, but habe clawed themselves back through hard work and now do well. Others i went to school with threw that amazing free education away, and chose a different pathnof being a hard man, or getting intondrugs, or no wanting to be 'sad' and study - they generally havent done so well.

The pertinent point to this thread is at some point, a 'progressive' taxatiob system starts to punish those who pmayed by the rules, and did what society wants of them, in favour of those who didnt. Thats the fundamental unfairness, and one of the reasons that socialism hasnt worked whenever its been tried - why strive if the reward is then distributed amongst those who dont?

As ive said, i dont think we are at that point with this modest increase, but taxes rarely go down the way, so its something about which we have to be careful. For what its worth, i do think the SNP are acutely aware of this dichotomy, and will approach it carefully.

Otherwise what is the point of a great educatiob system, if there is no reward at the end of it?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

It's in some people's nature to be self centred and egoistic. I'd wager that most people value fairness and equality more but maybe we're just both projecting our own values on society. :wink:

But fairness is a very subjective principle. Some people dont think its fair to arbitrarily take away half someone's salary to give to other people ie US style libertarians.

Others think its fair to strip everything from the 'rich' to redistribute it to the 'poor' i.e. socialists.

Most people, including myself, sit somewhere in between.

[Speedy]

Maybe, just maybe, if those privileged few that are willing to send their kids to private (public) schools at £9,000 a year were to pay the same to the local authorities education budgets we would see an improvement in the attainment gap. But they only want to 'improve' their own children's prospects and not others.

#justsayin'

They do that via tax, do they not?

[Moulin Yarns]

They do that via tax, do they not?

You miss the point. Every child at £9k a year instead of that being spent on their child the same amount goes to state education seeing as they have it spare and we have an education system that cater for all equally.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

You miss the point. Every child at £9k a year instead of that being spent on their child the same amount goes to state education seeing as they have it spare and we have an education system that cater for all equally.

So they shouldn't habe the choice on how to spend their own money, and how their oan children should be educated?

Thats a very illiberal view.

[Speedy]

You miss the point. Every child at £9k a year instead of that being spent on their child the same amount goes to state education seeing as they have it spare and we have an education system that cater for all equally.

Not quite as simple as that though is it, otherwise we'd currently have a system where all state schools are equal - obviously that isn't the case.

You could already argue that they're doing the state a favour by taking some of the strain away from state schools.

[Moulin Yarns]

Not quite as simple as that though is it, otherwise we'd currently have a system where all state schools are equal - obviously that isn't the case.

You could already argue that they're doing the state a favour by taking some of the strain away from state schools.
£9k a year per pupil would relieve the strain considerably don't you think.

[Speedy]

£9k a year per pupil would relieve the strain considerably don't you think.

It wouldn't do any harm but probably wouldn't help as much as you'd think if the current cost of 6 grand per pupil (that someone mentioned earlier) is to be believed.

What's your thoughts on the current disparity between different state schools? How would a bit extra cash result in everything being equal?

[Beefster]

You miss the point. Every child at £9k a year instead of that being spent on their child the same amount goes to state education seeing as they have it spare and we have an education system that cater for all equally.

There is a perception that all families who send their kids to private schools have lots of cash. That’s certainly the case for some but not all.

I know of families who do without the likes of holidays and barely have a spare penny because they’ve chosen to put all their resources into housing their family and sending their kids to private school. I don’t see the problem with that personally. If other families enjoy their holidays, gadgets, leisure activiites, fags, alcohol, Sky TV Etc, fair play to them. Everyone has different priorities and works hard to fund those.

It suits some agendas to paint them all as toffs rolling in cash though. It’s the same with private health (which lots of folk get as an employment benefit). Folk pay tax and free education/healthcare etc is part of the social contract. If some then choose to not take some of that up, at no cost to the rest of society, hey ho.

[Hibernia&Alba]

My history is a bit woozy, but does public education in scotland not pre-date socialism by some distance? Id always thought it was more ofna religious priciple in keeping with prebyterian values of self reliance and taling responsibility for oneself - but others will know more about that than me, not being a presbyterian!

Apologies for missing your point, i thought you wete arguing against private education. As far as i saw on this thread, nobody is arguing against universal education - certainlu not me, given i am a product of it (although i got caught in the shoet lived student fees / graduate endowment in scotland, and also had to self fund my post-grad studies).

Which, to bring it back to this thread, is thw whole point of a good universal educatiob system, is to equip people to succeed in life - to get a job they want, to help them do well, and to provide for them a means to sustain themselves and their family.

Lots of my mates took advantage of this amazing benefit, amd have done really well. Some didnt, but habe clawed themselves back through hard work and now do well. Others i went to school with threw that amazing free education away, and chose a different pathnof being a hard man, or getting intondrugs, or no wanting to be 'sad' and study - they generally havent done so well.

The pertinent point to this thread is at some point, a 'progressive' taxatiob system starts to punish those who pmayed by the rules, and did what society wants of them, in favour of those who didnt. Thats the fundamental unfairness, and one of the reasons that socialism hasnt worked whenever its been tried - why strive if the reward is then distributed amongst those who dont?

As ive said, i dont think we are at that point with this modest increase, but taxes rarely go down the way, so its something about which we have to be careful. For what its worth, i do think the SNP are acutely aware of this dichotomy, and will approach it carefully.

Otherwise what is the point of a great educatiob system, if there is no reward at the end of it?

Democratic socialism has worked many times, including here in Britain. I would argue the Labour government of 1945-51 is the best Britain has ever had: the government which introduced the welfare state, the National Health Service, implemented the 1944 Education Act, created full employment in peace time, carried through a massive slum clearance and housebuilding programme. Our country became more prosperous, more meritocratic and more civilised as a consequence of the Attlee government. And all this was done when the country was virtually bankrupt after six years of war. There was no talk of no money for public services.

Free health and education at the point of delivery are socialistic principles, as they aren't based upon ability to pay; they are not dictated by market forces.

You use the word 'punish', which is tendentious. To me it isn't a question of punishment at all. I received a free education and free health care; there was a welfare system which kept food on the table when my dad was out of work for a time under Thatcher. It was tough, but there was a collective system in place which guaranteed minimum standards, and as a result I was able to get to university. I am now proud to contribute to that system and want it to thrive for other kids from the same background. I also played by the rules and now have the capacity to help the system which helped me. We all benefit from a healthier and better educated society; a system which promotes social mobility enables kids from poorer backgrounds to achieve things their ancestors were denied. We reverse that process at our peril. A system which enabled kids from my background to achieve more and earn more, means we are now in a position to contribute more; it's win-win. It depends upon one's point of view. What you call punishment I call social justice. All the studies I've seen on this issue have concluded that the more egalitarian societies are happier and less violent than the more unequal ones. I don't believe that market forces are most efficient or moral way to allocate resources; the things that really make life worth living are priceless.

[Mibbes Aye]

Democratic socialism has worked many times, including here in Britain. I would argue the Labour government of 1945-51 is the best Britain has ever had: the government which introduced the welfare state, the National Health Service, implemented the 1944 Education Act, created full employment in peace time, carried through a massive slum clearance and housebuilding programme. Our country became more prosperous, more meritocratic and more civilised as a consequence of the Attlee government. And all this was done when the country was virtually bankrupt after six years of war. There was no talk of no money for public services.

Free health and education at the point of delivery are socialistic principles, as they aren't based upon ability to pay; they are not dictated by market forces.

You use the word 'punish', which is tendentious. To me it isn't a question of punishment at all. I received a free education and free health care; there was a welfare system which kept food on the table when my dad was out of work for a time under Thatcher. It was tough, but there was a collective system in place which guaranteed minimum standards, and as a result I was able to get to university. I am now proud to contribute to that system and want it to thrive for other kids from the same background. I also played by the rules and now have the capacity to help the system which helped me. We all benefit from a healthier and better educated society; a system which promotes social mobility enables kids from poorer backgrounds to achieve things their ancestors were denied. We reverse that process at our peril. A system which enabled kids from my background to achieve more and earn more, means we are now in a position to contribute more; it's win-win. It depends upon one's point of view. What you call punishment I call social justice. All the studies I've seen on this issue have concluded that the more egalitarian societies are happier and less violent than the more unequal ones. I don't believe that market forces are most efficient or moral way to allocate resources; the things that really make life worth living are priceless.

While I agree with your sentiment about the Attlee government, it should be borne in mind that it benefited from a massive injection of money (as did most of Western Europe) through the Marshall Plan. That allowed a huge degree of spending to rebuild the infrastructure that had been lost during the war and I doubt whether we could have afforded implementing the Beveridge Report in the manner we did, had that not happened. We also squandered opportunities in the face of very successful lobbying by the BMA - this ensured that 'gatekeeping' to healthcare remains in the hands of what are essentially private contractors.

Overall, I'm with you - all the Labour administrations since the war have implemented policies that deliver some degree of social justice to varying degrees, whether Attlee, Wilson, Callaghan, Blair or Brown, and they have been drivers for more progressive politics and a more progressive society. There's a theme throughout their tenures that reflects the mindset of thinkers like R.H. Tawney, though not without exception, and it chimes with what you've said in your last paragraph - namely that allowing inequality inhibits society's capacity to progress.

[Mr White]

Apologies if it's already been posted but here's an interesting opinion from the headmaster of private school suggesting the removal of business rate relief from private schools could actually cost more than it raises.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/scots-private-school-headteacher-betrayed-by-snp-rates-hike-1-4641304

He suggests 1800 pupils could return to state funded education at a cost of £10.8m against the anticipated £5m expected to be raised in tax by the change in status for private schools.

[CropleyWasGod]

Apologies if it's already been posted but here's an interesting opinion from the headmaster of private school suggesting the removal of business rate relief from private schools could actually cost more than it raises.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/scots-private-school-headteacher-betrayed-by-snp-rates-hike-1-4641304

He suggests 1800 pupils could return to state funded education at a cost of £10.8m against the anticipated £5m expected to be raised in tax by the change in status for private schools.

I'm not following his arithmetic.

Conservatively, there are 50 schools affected. That's an average of £100k per school. How does he get from that to 1,800 returning to the State sector?

[Mr White]

I'm not following his arithmetic.

Conservatively, there are 50 schools affected. That's an average of £100k per school. How does he get from that to 1,800 returning to the State sector?

I don't know you'd need to ask him :greengrin

Perhaps he estimates the parents of 36 pupils on average at each of those schools won't be able to pay any anticipated rise in fees?


He's not exactly a neutral observer of course but I suspect he's got a point even if he's being a bit disingenuous with the figures.

[patch1875]

Apologies if it's already been posted but here's an interesting opinion from the headmaster of private school suggesting the removal of business rate relief from private schools could actually cost more than it raises.

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/scots-private-school-headteacher-betrayed-by-snp-rates-hike-1-4641304

He suggests 1800 pupils could return to state funded education at a cost of £10.8m against the anticipated £5m expected to be raised in tax by the change in status for private schools.

Does seem it’s a poor decision if that turns out to be the case.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't know you'd need to ask him :greengrin

Perhaps he estimates the parents of 36 pupils on average at each of those schools won't be able to pay any anticipated rise in fees?


He's not exactly a neutral observer of course but I suspect he's got a point even if he's being a bit disingenuous with the figures.

All they need to do is to get rid of 10 bursary scrotes each, and they're sorted :greengrin

Which makes 500 going back to the schemie schools......

I suspect he's not a maths teacher :cb

[patch1875]

I don't know you'd need to ask him :greengrin

Perhaps he estimates the parents of 36 pupils on average at each of those schools won't be able to pay any anticipated rise in fees?


He's not exactly a neutral observer of course but I suspect he's got a point even if he's being a bit disingenuous with the figures.

My daughters school gave 36 bursaries last year will they just pull them?

[Mr White]

My daughters school gave 36 bursaries last year will they just pull them?

I don't know. Despite attending a private school myself I don't really agree with the elitism I witnessed there and I wouldn't send my kids to such a school even if I could afford it.

However they exist, that's not going to change and I would never criticise parents such as yourself who think it's a good option for their kids. If this legislation ends up widening the gap between those who can and can't afford private education then that can only be a bad thing in my view.

[Jack]

My daughters school gave 36 bursaries last year will they just pull them?

Can I ask how many children go to your daughters school?

Do you know if that bursary element is proportionate throughout the independent sector?

[Pretty Boy]

All they need to do is to get rid of 10 bursary scrotes each, and they're sorted :greengrin

Which makes 500 going back to the schemie schools......

I suspect he's not a maths teacher :cb

I don’t think anyone is in Scotland if the headlines are to be believed.

[Mr White]

All they need to do is to get rid of 10 bursary scrotes each, and they're sorted :greengrin

Which makes 500 going back to the schemie schools......

I suspect he's not a maths teacher :cb
So in that scenario there would be little benefit to the treasury but 500 bursary places are lost. Is that a good thing?

Presumably to keep their charitable status they need to keep the bursaries at current levels and he's estimating the rise in fees required will price a certain percentage of current pupils out of the system? Even if he's over-egging it a bit with the numbers it doesn't seem to me that this legislation makes much sense or will bring any benefit to anybody really.

[patch1875]

Can I ask how many children go to your daughters school?

Do you know if that bursary element is proportionate throughout the independent sector?
2700 approx

I’m not sure how it all works tba it must be a percentage of income is allocated to it. It’s not all bursaries there are many different scolarships also available we get a report every year about how it allocated but I don’t really pay that much attention to it. Don’t think all the schools work the same way as each other though.

[Beefster]

All they need to do is to get rid of 10 bursary scrotes each, and they're sorted :greengrin

Which makes 500 going back to the schemie schools......

I suspect he's not a maths teacher :cb

He’s saying that there will also be families who won’t be able to afford the resulting fees rise, I think.

[Stonewall]

He’s saying that there will also be families who won’t be able to afford the resulting fees rise, I think.

Most of the big Edinburgh private schools were grant aided up to the early 70s and when the government withdrew the grant had the option to go into the state system or becoming fully private. Royal High went into the state system, whilst Watsons, Heriots etc went fully private.

The fees charged went up substantially and a fair number of kids in my year at Watsons had to leave the school. If the fees are increased substantially the same thing could happen again.

i was at private school but elected to send my son to a state school. I tend to think this will risk putting more pressure on an already underfunded state system. There seems to me to be no real political desire to properly fund state schools. I think they should concentrate at closing the gaps within the state system and use the current tax relief as a means to ensure the private sector increases the number of bursaries and makes their facilities and resources open to the public.

[CropleyWasGod]

Most of the big Edinburgh private schools were grant aided up to the early 70s and when the government withdrew the grant had the option to go into the state system or becoming fully private. Royal High went into the state system, whilst Watsons, Heriots etc went fully private.

The fees charged went up substantially and a fair number of kids in my year at Watsons had to leave the school. If the fees are increased substantially the same thing could happen again.

i was at private school but elected to send my son to a state school. I tend to think this will risk putting more pressure on an already underfunded state system. There seems to me to be no real political desire to properly fund state schools. I think they should concentrate at closing the gaps within the state system and use the current tax relief as a means to ensure the private sector increases the number of bursaries and makes their facilities and resources open to the public.

Royal High wasn't private. It has always been part of the state system. It was a "selective" school, in that it charged (very low) fees (as did Trinity, Gillespie's and Wardie Primary) and required an entrance exam to be passed. In that respect, it was out of the "11 plus" environment that most Edinburgh schools were in. When the grant-aided system changed, as you say in the early 70's, the fees were abolished, but the entrance requirement remained. A few years later, the entrance exam was also abolished, and.....heaven forfend.... gurls were allowed in.

IIRC, it was our old friend George Foulkes who led the campaign to have the selective schools brought into what became the comprehensive system.

[Stonewall]

Royal High wasn't private. It has always been part of the state system. It was a "selective" school, in that it charged (very low) fees (as did Trinity, Gillespie's and Wardie Primary) and required an entrance exam to be passed. In that respect, it was out of the "11 plus" environment that most Edinburgh schools were in. When the grant-aided system changed, as you say in the early 70's, the fees were abolished, but the entrance requirement remained. A few years later, the entrance exam was also abolished, and.....heaven forfend.... gurls were allowed in.

IIRC, it was our old friend George Foulkes who led the campaign to have the selective schools brought into what became the comprehensive system.

Happy to be corrected, it was all a long time ago and I was very young but I thought Royal High was essentially in the same situation as the Merchant Company Schools and Heriots whilst the Academy, Fettes etc were always fully private. From memory the fees went up by a factor of three or four when the grant was withdrawn. They all did tend to operate more like grammar schools though and I know that the schools did consider whether they should go into the state system at the time.

[CropleyWasGod]

Happy to be corrected, it was all a long time ago and I was very young but I thought Royal High was essentially in the same situation as the Merchant Company Schools and Heriots whilst the Academy, Fettes etc were always fully private. From memory the fees went up by a factor of three or four when the grant was withdrawn. They all did tend to operate more like grammar schools though and I know that the schools did consider whether they should go into the state system at the time.

RHS was always a bit of a hybrid. It was a wannabe public school, but within the State system.

We (cos ah wis one) thought of ourselves as more streetwise than the Watson's toenails, but a class above the schemie radges :greengrin

[Stonewall]

RHS was always a bit of a hybrid. It was a wannabe public school, but within the State system.

We (cos ah wis one) thought of ourselves as more streetwise than the Watson's toenails, but a class above the schemie radges :greengrin

We were definitely downmarket from the Academy. Few Royal High kids ended up at Watson’s after the grant was withdrawn.

[-Jonesy-]

I left a bang average Edinburgh state school with 8 highers at A and B level, my time there included staying away from a lot of bams while being no angel myself. I don't think private schools have much of anything to offer to a child's education other than a stunted social development. That's my own view entirely of course.
I think it's basically down to the quality of home life the parents provide to their kids that keeps them in check through their school days. I intend to be fully involved in some manner in my kids education from day one and won't be taking the soft option of sending my kids to a private school and sitting back.

[JeMeSouviens]

I left a bang average Edinburgh state school with 8 highers at A and B level, my time there included staying away from a lot of bams while being no angel myself. I don't think private schools have much of anything to offer to a child's education other than a stunted social development. That's my own view entirely of course.
I think it's basically down to the quality of home life the parents provide to their kids that keeps them in check through their school days. I intend to be fully involved in some manner in my kids education from day one and won't be taking the soft option of sending my kids to a private school and sitting back.

I agree for the most part but the one thing a private school does get you is access to their old boy network which sadly, even in 2017, is worth having in some Edinburgh professions.

[-Jonesy-]

I agree for the most part but the one thing a private school does get you is access to their old boy network which sadly, even in 2017, is worth having in some Edinburgh professions.

**** that, my kids will be taught that if they don't fight the system, they are the system 🤘🏻

Unless it comes to mum and dad obviously :D

[beensaidbefore]

**** that, my kids will be taught that if they don't fight the system, they are the system 🤘🏻

Unless it comes to mum and dad obviously :D

Playing the system would probably have a better outcomes for them mind you.

Don't think it is compulsory to be a twat if you are privately educated...although it does seem to come natural to quite a few.

I note you said you were, this isn't a dig at you.😁

[Smartie]

I had a state school education, and it was generally faultless.

(Most of the problems I had/have are due to awful career choices and being a soft kid who had pushy parents, but that's a story for another day and another place).

If I knew the same education was going to be delivered now, I'd have no doubts about sending my kids to a state school.

The problem is, there has been a silent erosion of the standards of all state provisions over the past few decades and standards will be nowhere near where they were when I was at school. I work within (very loosely) the healthcare sector and when you start to see what the NHS can do vs what private healthcare can often do (and consider the reputation that the NHS has elsewhere in the world) you can't hero but wonder if the same situation exists in all sectors, including education.

Politicians of every type are the lowest form of ****. They interfere and play with people's health, lives, livelihoods and prospects. They are the ones who shoulder the blame for being unable to have a sensible conversation with the public regarding what we should expect for the taxes we spend. From Brown and Blair into the Tory austerity years we've seen standards drop and their job as they see it has not been to improve matters - it's been to hide from us the true state of play and somehow make us continue to be grateful.

In the unlikely event that my situation improves over the next few years, one of my priorities will be to ensure that my children are privately educated.

And one of the things that I liked least from my childhood was the "inverse snobbery" that went on towards good friends of mine whose parents happened to have chosen a different educational path for them. People are people, and deserve respect of not being judged positively or negatively depending on whether their parents happen to have chosen to pay for their education, and it is a prejudice that works both ways.

[Mr White]

I had a state school education, and it was generally faultless.

(Most of the problems I had/have are due to awful career choices and being a soft kid who had pushy parents, but that's a story for another day and another place).

If I knew the same education was going to be delivered now, I'd have no doubts about sending my kids to a state school.

The problem is, there has been a silent erosion of the standards of all state provisions over the past few decades and standards will be nowhere near where they were when I was at school. I work within (very loosely) the healthcare sector and when you start to see what the NHS can do vs what private healthcare can often do (and consider the reputation that the NHS has elsewhere in the world) you can't hero but wonder if the same situation exists in all sectors, including education.

Politicians of every type are the lowest form of ****. They interfere and play with people's health, lives, livelihoods and prospects. They are the ones who shoulder the blame for being unable to have a sensible conversation with the public regarding what we should expect for the taxes we spend. From Brown and Blair into the Tory austerity years we've seen standards drop and their job as they see it has not been to improve matters - it's been to hide from us the true state of play and somehow make us continue to be grateful.

In the unlikely event that my situation improves over the next few years, one of my priorities will be to ensure that my children are privately educated.

And one of the things that I liked least from my childhood was the "inverse snobbery" that went on towards good friends of mine whose parents happened to have chosen a different educational path for them. People are people, and deserve respect of not being judged positively or negatively depending on whether their parents happen to have chosen to pay for their education, and it is a prejudice that works both ways.

:top marks

[-Jonesy-]

I note you said you were, this isn't a dig at you.😁

No I didn't, I wasn't, still plenty capable of being a twat too though.

[Tornadoes70]

Politicians of every colour send their children to fee paying schools/colleges/universities/religious educational institutions. Its the ones who send their children to these schools of excellence privately while publicly hypocritically pretending to criticise them I can't stand. I don't know the exact proportion of politicians who send their children to fee paying establishment but I would surmise there's a majority of them who do while the state education system lags way behind those of a fee paying standard.

[Hibernia&Alba]

It's a different debate, but I would be in favour of the abolition of all selective schools in the state sector. To me it seems grossly unjust to have around 80 per cent of children in a particular area written off at the age of eleven as a consequence of one exam; condemned to being labelled as less able and perceived to have narrower ambitions. Children develop at different rates, meaning a single test one any given day is an inadequate indicator of ability, IMHO. To have the majority of kids knowing they are regarded as lesser pupils from eleven really doesn't sit right with me.

I went through the comprehensive system, so no selection exam and off to the local high school where I mixed with kids from all backgrounds and of all abilities. I think it was the best thing that could have happened to me, as there wasn't any sense of division, of superiority or inferiority, and all the kids were treated just the same. There was extra work for the most able and support for the least able, and it worked great. My teachers were motivated and excellent professionals; I couldn't have asked for better in the best public schools. That's what we need for every state school, particularly in the most deprived areas, as education is the most important facilitator of social mobility.

[Swedish hibee]

Nothing to do with schools, but 45% of my wage goes on tax. And I have friends who pay more.. What is the average tax on £30,000 wage and £80,000 wage in Scotland before the increase?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

It's a different debate, but I would be in favour of the abolition of all selective schools in the state sector. To me it seems grossly unjust to have around 80 per cent of children in a particular area written off at the age of eleven as a consequence of one exam; condemned to being labelled as less able and perceived to have narrower ambitions. Children develop at different rates, meaning a single test one any given day is an inadequate indicator of ability, IMHO. To have the majority of kids knowing they are regarded as lesser pupils from eleven really doesn't sit right with me.

I went through the comprehensive system, so no selection exam and off to the local high school where I mixed with kids from all backgrounds and of all abilities. I think it was the best thing that could have happened to me, as there wasn't any sense of division, of superiority or inferiority, and all the kids were treated just the same. There was extra work for the most able and support for the least able, and it worked great. My teachers were motivated and excellent professionals; I couldn't have asked for better in the best public schools. That's what we need for every state school, particularly in the most deprived areas, as education is the most important facilitator of social mobility.

I agree with this, and i think its to our credit here in Scotland that we dont do this (i think?).

I would also extend this principme to religious schools, which i think have no place in a state education system.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Nothing to do with schools, but 45% of my wage goes on tax. And I have friends who pay more.. What is the average tax on £30,000 wage and £80,000 wage in Scotland before the increase?

I would guess its not that different on 80k when you take into account NI contributions.

On 30k i would guess around 35-40%?

[Hibernia&Alba]

I agree with this, and i think its to our credit here in Scotland that we dont do this (i think?).

I would also extend this principme to religious schools, which i think have no place in a state education system.

I agree with your point about state faith schools. IMO, the state shouldn't be involved in religion; it should be an entirely private matter for the individual and there should be full separation of Church[es] and state.

[CropleyWasGod]

.

[CropleyWasGod]

It's a different debate, but I would be in favour of the abolition of all selective schools in the state sector. To me it seems grossly unjust to have around 80 per cent of children in a particular area written off at the age of eleven as a consequence of one exam; condemned to being labelled as less able and perceived to have narrower ambitions. Children develop at different rates, meaning a single test one any given day is an inadequate indicator of ability, IMHO. To have the majority of kids knowing they are regarded as lesser pupils from eleven really doesn't sit right with me.

I went through the comprehensive system, so no selection exam and off to the local high school where I mixed with kids from all backgrounds and of all abilities. I think it was the best thing that could have happened to me, as there wasn't any sense of division, of superiority or inferiority, and all the kids were treated just the same. There was extra work for the most able and support for the least able, and it worked great. My teachers were motivated and excellent professionals; I couldn't have asked for better in the best public schools. That's what we need for every state school, particularly in the most deprived areas, as education is the most important facilitator of social mobility.Are there selective schools in the State sector?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

Are there selective schools in the State sector?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

I don't know if there are any local authorities in Scotland which maintain them, but certainly in England and Northern Ireland there are state grammar schools.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't know if there are any local authorities in Scotland which maintain them, but certainly in England and Northern Ireland there are state grammar schools.Ok ta. I was meaning Scotland specifically.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Speedy]

I would guess its not that different on 80k when you take into account NI contributions.

On 30k i would guess around 35-40%?

On 30k it's around 20%. On 80k it's about 35%.

[johnbc70]

I think people overlook the influence the parents have, makes a massive difference I believe.

Too many parents see the school as some kind of childcare facility rather than engaging with their kids and taking an active interest and encouraging them to learn.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

On 30k it's around 20%. On 80k it's about 35%.

I stand corrected - would have thought NI and income tax is higher than that.

[steakbake]

Can I ask how many children go to your daughters school?

Do you know if that bursary element is proportionate throughout the independent sector?

The guy on the radio being dramatic about the business rates for Clifton Hall school was saying that 3 of 358 kids are on bursaries.

That, to me, feels almost like it's the absolute bare minimum to keep up the illusion of charity.

[patch1875]

I think people overlook the influence the parents have, makes a massive difference I believe.

Too many parents see the school as some kind of childcare facility rather than engaging with their kids and taking an active interest and encouraging them to learn.

Completely the opposite.

[JeMeSouviens]

On 30k it's around 20%. On 80k it's about 35%.

This guardian article:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/may/27/tax-britons-pay-europe-australia-us

Claims that for the UK -

Gross salary £25,000
After tax £20,279
Tax rate 18.9%

Gross salary £40,000
After tax £30,480
Tax rate 24.8%

Gross salary £100,000
After tax £65,780
Tax rate 34.3%

cf Sweden -

Gross salary £25,000
After tax £19,500
Tax rate 22%

Gross salary £40,000
After tax £30,000
Tax rate 25%

Gross salary £100,000
After tax £55,000
Tax rate 45%

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

This guardian article:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/may/27/tax-britons-pay-europe-australia-us

Claims that for the UK -

Gross salary £25,000
After tax £20,279
Tax rate 18.9%

Gross salary £40,000
After tax £30,480
Tax rate 24.8%

Gross salary £100,000
After tax £65,780
Tax rate 34.3%

cf Sweden -

Gross salary £25,000
After tax £19,500
Tax rate 22%

Gross salary £40,000
After tax £30,000
Tax rate 25%

Gross salary £100,000
After tax £55,000
Tax rate 45%

Does that include NI too (effectively an income tax)?

[JeMeSouviens]

Does that include NI too (effectively an income tax)?

Yes

[Swedish hibee]

Yes

Very interesting! Thank-you for posting.

[JeMeSouviens]

Very interesting! Thank-you for posting.

You're welcome. :aok:

[johnbc70]

Completely the opposite.

What do you mean?

[danhibees1875]

What do you mean?

Parents who sent their kids to private school are taking an active interest in their children's education, making sacrifices to ensure they get off to as good a start as possible and don't see it as some sort of expensive childcare - as you suggested.

I didn't go to private school, and found the concept quite alien - I don't know the %'s, but not many kids in Glenrothes went to private school! I've since moved to Edinburgh and I know a lot of people from a variety of backgrounds who went to private school. It's somewhat muddied my view, and something that I would have previously never considered doing, sending my kids to private school, I'd be more open to considering when the time came.

[CapitalGreen]

Parents who sent their kids to private school are taking an active interest in their children's education, making sacrifices to ensure they get off to as good a start as possible and don't see it as some sort of expensive childcare - as you suggested.

I didn't go to private school, and found the concept quite alien - I don't know the %'s, but not many kids in Glenrothes went to private school! I've since moved to Edinburgh and I know a lot of people from a variety of backgrounds who went to private school. It's somewhat muddied my view, and something that I would have previously never considered doing, sending my kids to private school, I'd be more open to considering when the time came.

Unless I'm mistaken I don't think he was referring to the parents of Private school pupils.

[danhibees1875]

Unless I'm mistaken I don't think he was referring to the parents of Private school pupils.

You're right - I read it wrong. :aok: Sorry johnb.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Yes

Cheers - interesting stats and interesting reading.

It doesnt include council tax though i dont think, but given the difficulty in comparing numerous complex systems, that is a good read.

Had no idea about the church tax in Germany, seems mad.

Also quite a few seem to have far lower personal allowances than the UK, which of coursr may be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view.

Would it not be possible for a government to levy a tax on registered users of social media companies as a way to resdpond and tax those companies (i mean tax the company per user, not the person).

This would seem like an obvious solution to their sliperiness, and if they decided to pull out of the country, there would be no loss. Just something i was mulling over...

[johnbc70]

You're right - I read it wrong. :aok: Sorry johnb.

That's OK.

[patch1875]

That's OK.

I’m the same thought you referring to private school education, well seeing I didn’t do well at school😆

[JeMeSouviens]

I had a state school education, and it was generally faultless.

(Most of the problems I had/have are due to awful career choices and being a soft kid who had pushy parents, but that's a story for another day and another place).

If I knew the same education was going to be delivered now, I'd have no doubts about sending my kids to a state school.

The problem is, there has been a silent erosion of the standards of all state provisions over the past few decades and standards will be nowhere near where they were when I was at school. I work within (very loosely) the healthcare sector and when you start to see what the NHS can do vs what private healthcare can often do (and consider the reputation that the NHS has elsewhere in the world) you can't hero but wonder if the same situation exists in all sectors, including education.

Politicians of every type are the lowest form of ****. They interfere and play with people's health, lives, livelihoods and prospects. They are the ones who shoulder the blame for being unable to have a sensible conversation with the public regarding what we should expect for the taxes we spend. From Brown and Blair into the Tory austerity years we've seen standards drop and their job as they see it has not been to improve matters - it's been to hide from us the true state of play and somehow make us continue to be grateful.

In the unlikely event that my situation improves over the next few years, one of my priorities will be to ensure that my children are privately educated.

And one of the things that I liked least from my childhood was the "inverse snobbery" that went on towards good friends of mine whose parents happened to have chosen a different educational path for them. People are people, and deserve respect of not being judged positively or negatively depending on whether their parents happen to have chosen to pay for their education, and it is a prejudice that works both ways.


Really? Like most people of my age (secondary in the 80s) I had a pretty mixed bag with some good teachers, some hopeless, most demoralised, with a background of strikes, nothing extra-curricular and pretty dilapidated surroundings. I went to Currie which was way overcrowded until Balerno opened, with half the classrooms in various huts dotted about the place.

My sons, 1 finished, 1 in 6th year, have also had a fairly mixed bag but on the whole I'd say a better school experience in the state sector than I had.

I have a principled objection to private education (as articulated already by H&A etc) but not so principled as not to move house to a perceived "good school" catchment before we had kids. I would say it's one thing to have principles and quite another to actually subject your kids to something you perceive to be worse in the name of those principles. As it happens, I've been happy with the education they got and the money we haven't spent on fees has meant a richer life for them in terms of travel, etc and probably much less financially stressed parents!

The private schools cream off not only the moneyed but also a good proportion of the most able kids and the most potentially involved parents. With all those people pulling for the state sector it would undoubtedly be better for all.

[patch1875]

Is not using the 6k that it costs per pupil each year classed as contributing?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Really? Like most people of my age (secondary in the 80s) I had a pretty mixed bag with some good teachers, some hopeless, most demoralised, with a background of strikes, nothing extra-curricular and pretty dilapidated surroundings. I went to Currie which was way overcrowded until Balerno opened, with half the classrooms in various huts dotted about the place.

My sons, 1 finished, 1 in 6th year, have also had a fairly mixed bag but on the whole I'd say a better school experience in the state sector than I had.

I have a principled objection to private education (as articulated already by H&A etc) but not so principled as not to move house to a perceived "good school" catchment before we had kids. I would say it's one thing to have principles and quite another to actually subject your kids to something you perceive to be worse in the name of those principles. As it happens, I've been happy with the education they got and the money we haven't spent on fees has meant a richer life for them in terms of travel, etc and probably much less financially stressed parents!

The private schools cream off not only the moneyed but also a good proportion of the most able kids and the most potentially involved parents. With all those people pulling for the state sector it would undoubtedly be better for all.


Its a very good point about catchment areas. I even once read a study that said that it cost more to pay tge catchment area premium than to pay school fees.

It was certaibly the biggest consideration when i was house hunting.

[lyonhibs]

I agree for the most part but the one thing a private school does get you is access to their old boy network which sadly, even in 2017, is worth having in some Edinburgh professions.

I went to an aforementioned private school. Could you kindly provide me the details of how I might tap up this nebulous "old boy network". Would I just hang around Charlotte Square and make braying noises until one of them recognised me?

[lyonhibs]

:top marks

Another 10/10 from me too. Have experienced a lot of it myself as a lad and still hear the stock phrase "posh ****" get used far too much just because of someone's education history.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Another 10/10 from me too. Have experienced a lot of it myself as a lad and still hear the stock phrase "posh ****" get used far too much just because of someone's education history.

But thats OK abuse...

Its almost as if jealousy and dogma, and not a desire for 'fairness' is the main motivator for some people on this issue ...

[ronaldo7]

But thats OK abuse...

Its almost as if jealousy and dogma, and not a desire for 'fairness' is the main motivator for some people on this issue ...

I think it's only fair that we all get Skiing holidays.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2017/12/19/nicola-sturgeon-stole-my-skiing-holiday/

The shrill of Tory hacks, and their supporters is fair game.

[RyeSloan]

I think it's only fair that we all get Skiing holidays.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2017/12/19/nicola-sturgeon-stole-my-skiing-holiday/

The shrill of Tory hacks, and their supporters is fair game.

It's a pretty shrill piece itself. MSW is, strangely enough, a bit of a free marketeer but has written plenty attacking Tory policies as well. I don't agree with everything she says but to some degree she has a point here. You can't just ignore the fact that as the gap grows larger between what take home pay people will get in rUK v Scotland that it won't be a consideration for some...and that some may well be in the very same income brackets that the tax system is relying on more and more to pay larger proportions of the total income tax pot.

A point of course shared by no other than Derek MacKay who rather recently I believe had the opportunity to deliver significant tax rises at the upper level but declined to do so as he believed they wouldn't work.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

It's a pretty shrill piece itself. MSW is, strangely enough, a bit of a free marketeer but has written plenty attacking Tory policies as well. I don't agree with everything she says but to some degree she has a point here. You can't just ignore the fact that as the gap grows larger between what take home pay people will get in rUK v Scotland that it won't be a consideration for some...and that some may well be in the very same income brackets that the tax system is relying on more and more to pay larger proportions of the total income tax pot.

A point of course shared by no other than Derek MacKay who rather recently I believe had the opportunity to deliver significant tax rises at the upper level but declined to do so as he believed they wouldn't work.

A good point. The SNP are walking a bit of a political tight rope, with the tories stalking them from the right (their traditional base) and now the prospect of a resurgent, left wing labour attacking them from thw left (their new base).

I think MacKay trod a fairly balanced path, the problem i think he will have is that he will now (rightly or wrongly) be judged on the outcomes that result from these increases, and my gut instinct is that the increases are not high enough to make a big, obvious or quick difference to the bottom line of outcomes - but maybe not, and maybe the publix sector pay rise will be enough to win folk around / or keep them onside.