Will only ever happen if we enshrine in law some fairly rigorous laws that protect people when they are born into this world without any say in the circumstances they are born into.
Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II
- Thread starter Zefan
- Start date
- Status
Will only ever happen if we enshrine in law some fairly rigorous laws that protect people when they are born into this world without any say in the circumstances they are born into.
So presumably you don't agree with Gay marriage? You don't agree with freedom of religion? You don't agree with freedom of speech? You don't agree with various liberal values and and free market economy?
They are. That report I linked to shows they are paying an effective tax of 31%, the same as they did in 1980. In fact it hasn't changed for 35 years.
Soldato
What entrance exams do is to add an element of meritocracy to admissions, rather than make everything solely about who has the most money. Which is a good thing.
It reduces that choice by taking it away from the poorer families. Increased fees make going there less available. That is a bad thing. It denies children opportunities.
Wasn't I having to argue against people saying there were huge waiting lists so removal had no negative effect a moment ago? I'll argue against whichever people want to put to us, but one cannot posit both at the same time. And if we do take the above at face value then it's based on a supposition that the positive effect of reducing a classroom size by one is less than the negative effect of removing a child able to pass private school entrance exams. I had not realised that the exams were so impressive that the children they selected for were so smart that burdening state schools with them actually made it easier for those state schools. Or possibly you're focusing on a micro-effect as an argument against a much larger and clearly measurable macro-effect (smaller class sizes). Now, about the massive waiting lists that would make the whole "removing motivated pupils" argument disingenuous. Are there massive lists swamping the effect of this or aren't there? If not, then we can presumably dispense with the arguments about it not affecting state school numbers, yes?
My children come first in everything I do. I will gladly help others. But they come first and I won't have them dragged down to the lowest common denominator like many do in this country. Frankly what anyone thinks of that is irrelevant as those views are not of any value.
You're also assuming my political leaning. Until recently I was almost tempted to vote Labour this time and will probably vote Libdem.
Because it's not even in their manifesto perhaps? All that is in is a promise to look at the unfair council tax situation. lVT is a suggestion as an alternative.
Soldato
So presumably you don't agree with Gay marriage? You don't agree with freedom of religion? You don't agree with freedom of speech? You don't agree with various liberal values and and free market economy?
Hmmmm. Nope, I'm a strong believer on most of those!
I wonder why I have you mentally flagged as someone I argue with, then? Must be something we argued about which I've forgotten. Oh well, it's nice to make friends! 
It is typical of labour to effectively tax private education. It is a cynical move. They know that people who are willing to spend on their kids' educations are the for the most part not voting labour (OK amigafan we get it, you're a hard core, retired, student, trade unionist through and through but you send your kids to private school) so there is no risk to them of losing votes through that cynical move. People who pay for private education typically pay far more than average into the tax coffers and then do not take advantage of the system themselves, effectively paying for education twice. Personally I think it is disgraceful to create a tax of this nature and typical of labour to cynically punish those who are most productive, pay the most tax and are not a drain on the system.
you gave them money? :/As an aside, I bought the Daily Mail today (don't normally, honest
B@
Soldato
Questioner: "Is Boris Johnson a smart person pretending to be an idiot, or an idiot pretending to be a smart person?"
Ian Hislop: "Yes."
Caporegime
Hmmmm. Nope, I'm a strong believer on most of those!
Probably deuse or dolph you're thinking of
It is typical of their self-loathing and desire to pull everyone down into the mire instead of actually work for a society that promotes more opportunities for people to better themselves.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 2,175
I am finding it odd the poll looks like Labour...this is normally quite a middle England slightly to the right forum...might be close....
Permabanned
With the education cuts and with further cuts incoming private school might be the only option of a decent education soon enough.
According to http://www.schoolcuts.org.uk (unsure who set that up and any bias) my kids school is set to lose £380 per pupil and 3 teachers due to Conservative cuts. Can anyone with kids actually back the Tories?
Thats not even factoring further cuts due to economy wrecking Brexit.
According to http://www.schoolcuts.org.uk (unsure who set that up and any bias) my kids school is set to lose £380 per pupil and 3 teachers due to Conservative cuts. Can anyone with kids actually back the Tories?
Thats not even factoring further cuts due to economy wrecking Brexit.
Soldato
Please answer my question. I will repost the quote here:
As to yours, I have no idea how you distorted what I wrote into your bizarre interpretation. No, I do not think someone on £50,000 should pay 100% tax rate. Next bloody stupid question.
Probably deuse or dolph you're thinking of
Ha! No. I wouldn't insult Dowie so much as to confuse Deuse with them.
And Dolph's posts are... distinctive.Pfft. That's where you are going wrong, you need to work harder and get them in private school. Don't you know anything?
As an aside, I bought the Daily Mail today (don't normally, honest
For me, the telling thing about the Mail is the front page of their website. Politics is rarely front and centre. It's a gossip rag. The politics stuff is eye-catching, aimed at those too lazy and disinterested in the subject matter to really consider or test what is being claimed.
It's also the UK's most read paper, in print and online. It's quite harrowing really; 23.5 million UK readers a month and the quality of political debate rarely rises above "Apologists for Terror" or "Crush the Saboteurs". No wonder politics is totally ******.
Most people blame the politicians. Personally, I think it's the disinterested, uninformed, easily-led public that are to blame.
To answer your question, 5% more so 11.06 people. Happy?
Your argument seems to be that ther over £150k people are already paying so many of the lesser earners in total tax therefore you seem to think everybody should pay the same amount logically. If you accept that isn't fair, then you are left with people paying roughly the same percentage ignoring those who can't afford it on low wages like £20k.
On another note it might be 11 people now, back in 1980 it was only 4 people's worth. Why do those on over £150k get away with only paying the same as 11 people now?
the claim you made, that I objected to, was:
this is likely false:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39641222
see also:
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9178
Maybe if you select some scenario whereby someone is on a low income but high enough to pay income tax and spends all their disposable income of beer/fags/petrol etc.. but I suspect it isn't so simple
Some of the schools around here are already trying to operate on £100,000 less than previous years and having to cut facilities, etc. they've had a few million spent on glamming them up as academies and now dumped with less money to work from while expected to operate at a higher standard.
- Status