|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 12, 2023 8:14:53 GMT
I wouldn't be against a tax discount on legal services that would otherwise need to be provided by government. The point of the tax system is to provide revenues for government services, not to hammer people And the point of legal system is a fair hearing for all,it’s not hammering people are those who are obliged to pay those taxes and fees in the wider world often the least able to pay and really hammered I don't think you are understanding my argument. Tax relief reduces the price of these services and thereby reduces the pressure on government services. The argument only works in a few cases - ie where the government would otherwise be liable. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jul 12, 2023 8:31:46 GMT
And the point of legal system is a fair hearing for all,it’s not hammering people are those who are obliged to pay those taxes and fees in the wider world often the least able to pay and really hammered I don't think you are understanding my argument. Tax relief reduces the price of these services and thereby reduces the pressure on government services. The argument only works in a few cases - ie where the government would otherwise be liable. But the govt is liable to provide healthcare,education and if you face criminal charges legal representation,my argument is that you are buying an advantage great if you’ve got the wherewithal but don’t expect a tax break. Best illustrated by someone I know/knew with a disabled member of their family they took every benefit and initiative available,do I condemn them for that? No nor their wealth and they were wealthy but they campaigned vigorously against taxation especially inheritance tax. How do they imagine the things they legitimately claimed for are paid for? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 12, 2023 8:52:19 GMT
I don't think you are understanding my argument. Tax relief reduces the price of these services and thereby reduces the pressure on government services. The argument only works in a few cases - ie where the government would otherwise be liable How do they imagine the things they legitimately claimed for are paid for? My point is it reduces the obligations of government and so reduces the need for revenue. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 12, 2023 9:17:58 GMT
Tax the income of the parents. SIMPLE. Are you suggesting that VAT should be abolished in its entirety or do you wish it to be levied only on goods ordinary people buy and not those exclusively bought by richer people? Well thats a good point Dominic Rabb made it a point in his leadership campaign when May went that VAT, a tax imposed on us in 1973 when we joined the EEC has no place in a United Kingdom free from the EU. Those of my age will recall when ‘luxury’ goods like cars attracted a purchase tax that ‘necessities’ did not. You would not have seen the (in my opinion righteous) anger that sanitary products attracted VAT had we not been forced to apply the EU taxes, as they certainly didn’t attract purchase tax and any Chancellor imposing it on such would be ridiculed and thrown in the Thames The other aspect of Purchase Tax was of course it was a tax levied on consumers, not businesses, and only retailers had to deal with the administrative burden it imposed. Discarding VAT for all except those who trade with the EU and then only for their international teade with the EU would hugely reduse the footprint the state imposes. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 12, 2023 9:31:00 GMT
Returning to the thread mainstream, i was told some years ago that Shirley Williams, the agent behind the destruction by bulldozing of the grammar school i had earned the right to attend by virtue of my 11+ pass, and many other such places, ensured her own offspring enjoyed a private school education
While such people in such positions of power abuse it to deny those of us not in possession of an MP’s salary and perks the education we snd our own children deserve the least we can do is tax their arses off to provide the best we can in the swamps left to us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 12, 2023 9:39:01 GMT
Returning to the thread mainstream, i was told some years ago that Shirley Williams, the agent behind the destruction by bulldozing of the grammar school i had earned the right to attend by virtue of my 11+ pass, and many other such places, ensured her own offspring enjoyed a private school education While such people in such positions of power abuse it to deny those of us not in possession of an MP’s salary and perks the education we snd our own children deserve the least we can do is tax their arses off to provide the best we can in the swamps left to us. This kind of hypocrisy confirms to me that politics is the art of lying and the political elite ( both left and right ) despise the working class . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2023 10:22:55 GMT
Well isn't it typical of Tory apologists to defend taking away the Educational Maintainence Allowance from poorer families, but then criticise a Labour plan to tax the wealthy.
Private education is a matter of choice, the alternative state education is there if parents wished to choose it, and IF Starmer becomes Prime Minister then private education will be subject to VAT, if the wealthy mummies and daddies suddenly decide they cannot aford the private education, there is an alternative - FREE.
Meanwhile in the real world, we have public services on their knees, desparate for resources, and we have to try and repair the damage done to public services over the past 13 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jul 12, 2023 10:35:03 GMT
How do they imagine the things they legitimately claimed for are paid for? My point is it reduces the obligations of government and so reduces the need for revenue. I understand your point and the need to limit taxation,my point is not just around this one issue but the whole charity industry. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 12, 2023 10:38:24 GMT
My point is it reduces the obligations of government and so reduces the need for revenue. I understand your point and the need to limit taxation,my point is not just around this one issue but the whole charity industry. I think the argument applies to services the government are otherwise liable to provide The argument goes like this - Tax relief on the service reduces the price and makes it more available and so relieves government of a burden it would otherwise be liable for. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 12, 2023 10:41:16 GMT
It's got nothing to do with fair opportunity for all. If you were going down that route then you would be demanding VAT on private healthcare because that is a far larger sector of the economy than private education. It's pure envy... There we go again unsubstantiated insults,I repeat for any unable to understand private health insurance and hospitals are not charities. As I already said - healthcare is VAT exempt.. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 12, 2023 10:46:56 GMT
It is a populist policy aimed at the brain dead. No charity status = no scholarships. The schools will simply remove all free places, thus allowing them to charge less for each fee-paying pupil, and Starmer's "extra billions in tax" will be wiped out by tens of thousands of pupils flooding back into state education. What a cracking idea, denying the brightest working class pupils a place in private / grammar schools in the name of equality lol. Yep, stupid is as stupid does. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 12, 2023 10:51:57 GMT
Well isn't it typical of Tory apologists to defend taking away the Educational Maintainence Allowance from poorer families, but then criticise a Labour plan to tax the wealthy. Private education is a matter of choice, the alternative state education is there if parents wished to choose it, and IF Starmer becomes Prime Minister then private education will be subject to VAT, if the wealthy mummies and daddies suddenly decide they cannot aford the private education, there is an alternative - FREE. Meanwhile in the real world, we have public services on their knees, desparate for resources, and we have to try and repair the damage done to public services over the past 13 years. You have contradicted your own point: You complain about the state of public services but support a measure that would potentially place more pressure on them. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jul 12, 2023 16:41:00 GMT
It is a populist policy aimed at the brain dead. No charity status = no scholarships. The schools will simply remove all free places, thus allowing them to charge less for each fee-paying pupil, and Starmer's "extra billions in tax" will be wiped out by tens of thousands of pupils flooding back into state education.What a cracking idea, denying the brightest working class pupils a place in private / grammar schools in the name of equality lol. Yep, stupid is as stupid does. The stupidity is believing tens of thousands get free education at the private schools,they don’t 6,000 out of over 600,000 or about 1% |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2023 20:00:29 GMT
Education and Healthcare are a public good - they both benefit the wider community. Yes, but private education or public schools as they are called are a luxury. They should be charged at a higher luxury VAT rate. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 12, 2023 21:23:54 GMT
Education and Healthcare are a public good - they both benefit the wider community. Yes, but private education or public schools as they are called are a luxury. They should be charged at a higher luxury VAT rate. Why is private education a luxury but private healthcare not? does not compute.. |
|
