Council tax and new ways..........

[Brian Sharrock]

In my day ... the Liverpool Education Service operated four 'streams' of schools; Grammar; Technical; Commercial and Secondary Modern. All of the schools seemed to be two-form entry. Selection occurred via the 11+ examination after which one was assigned to the different streams. [There was also a second exam at 13+ . I recall some boys joining the school I was sent to at age 11 when they were 13+ in the Third Form.] This seems to be 'multi-lateral' albeit it multi-campus .... as the educationalist would say now.

[John Cartmell]

Did you notice that, when I mentioned the traditional rates system, I also ignored the discounts and exemptions? Did you notice that I also called the current system unfair?

So please explain why you are seeking special consideration for the least fair system available?

[John Cartmell]

Why?

I understand that for one person or company to get to the top they may believe that they have to damage the competition. I know of no reason why the whole of society cannot be economically successful without equality and fairness. I do know that a society (as opposed to individuals) *cannot* become economically successful where inequalities are too large.

[John Cartmell]

Yes.

[Chris Bacon]

Not my job, matey - yours, which you've avoided. Ne'r mind.

[Mark]

I doubt it would be most. My local state primary school (which is a very good one) does not have any spare money and could not survive a budget cut without severe problems. It would be forced to make teachers redundant and the education of the children would suffer accordingly. Some parents may remove their children and the school budget would be reduced even further. This could then lead to the closure of the school. I doubt most other schools would be any different.

Mark.

[Andy Hall]

Who said anything about a budget cut? If it's as good as you say, then the opposite would happen and parents would be attracted to send their children to it.

[Mark]

Maybe more choice for the richer, less for the poorer. My choice is to send my children to my local state school. Your scheme could easily deny me that.

I have seen little evidence of that in the state schools my children have attended. They have all coped well with ranges of abilities.

"Wealthy" and "Rich" are relative terms. You might not consider people who put children through private education wealthy but many would. Lots of people make "substational sacrifices" already to pay for basic essentials and have nothing left to pay extra for education.

Mark.

[Andy Hall]

You may understand that. I don't.

It's perfectly possible to be successful without damaging the competition. The important point is that those with the ability and desire to be successful should not be held back through the unnecessary meddling of government in education and many other areas.

Because life isn't like that. We don't all have the same abilities, nor the same motivations or indeed the same ambitions.

It simply isn't realistic or productive for the state to attempt to impose "fairness" all the way down the line. It demotivates the achievers so that they either don't bother to achieve any more or leave, and is cruel for those without the ability to achieve in some areas but with ability in others.

I know that a "society" (whatever that is) or a civilisation is not successful economically or culturally unless there are inequalities and a hierarchy.

One only has to look at the history books or the animal kingdom to figure that one out.

[Joe]

Around 850 during the years I was there, including the sixth form. Not large as comprehensives go today. Class size around 35.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

If you read my earlier post you'll find that my widowed mother living on the OAP actually paid more with the poll tax than rates.

It was a typical Tory idea of cutting taxes for the *very* well off, but fooling middle England it would be a good idea for them.

[John Cartmell]

That's what you appeared to be suggesting.

I'd agree as long as you don't count stopping anti-social activities as 'meddling'.

You are reading the words in an entirely different way than their true meaning. No one is suggesting capping abilities.

The only people who usually complain in this way are those intent on nefarious activities and object to the state making reasonable laws to stop them. Some people were demotivated when they were stopped from adding floor sweepings to floor, returning beer spillage to the barrel, selling drugs, operating pyramid scams, &c. Good. I like to see such people demotivated. You won't see me supporting demotivation of potential achievers where their projects will be of benefit to society (as well as themslves). I've spent much of my life finding ways to encourage motivation and success.

If you are selective in your reading you are quite correct. You are obviously selective. You are also selective in your understanding of what you read because cooperation for a group is by far the fundamental way societies develop. You appear to have been quite thoroughly brainwashed.

[John Cartmell]

Wasn't it you? I thought you supported the diversion of public resources into supporting private schools? Or were you suggesting that that be done through increased taxation?

[Roger]

The message from "Brian Sharrock" contains these words:

So what's new? The self employed have always had a more sympathetic tax regime and much more scope for both legal and and illegal fiddling. ISTR that MPs are treated as self employed for tax purposes.

Given the mountain the Government have built on the basically simple notion of identity cards that might well be the way B.Liar & Co would work it, particularly if fatty 2 Jags had a hand in it, but it is not necessary to to burden employers in that way. The Inland Revenue could account for local income tax in the same way as they accounted for national insurance contributions. Depending on the mechanics of the scheme all that might be required of the employer would be to apply an individual tax rate to each employees income.

[Andy Hall]

Nope.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of public funds going to either state run or privately run schools at the choice of the parents. It isn't an issue of supporting one type of school versus another - purely one of excellence.

Parents should be able to choose between them and spend their education vouchers where their child will get the most suitable education.

One important point is the separation between collection and distribution of funds and the delivery of services. A second is autonomy for schools, whether they be nominally state owned or privately owned.

[Tony Bryer]

It's also a political reality that when you move some of the tax burden from one group to another the losers hate you and the winners show next to no gratitude.

[Andy Hall]

No reason why it would. The funding would simply come as a result of your children's attendance at the school along with that of others. As I said, if the school really is good, then it would be attractive to more parents and be able to scale in terms of facilities and staff.

Sadly this does not appear to be the norm as is evidenced by the declining standards produced.

There are always choices. I know of people who have gone for remortgaging and other forms of longer than normal term debt to the point of impoverishing themselves in order to fund their childrens' education.

[Andy Hall]

Certainly not. That's simply your preconceived notion that in order for somebody to succeed they have to trample the "competition".

I don't subscribe to that notion.

Of course stopping anti-social activities (as long as the populace as a whole rather than the government thinks that they are anti-social) is reasonable.

It's the inevitable outcome of state sponsored "fairness".

That's a very jaundiced view which really doesn't stand scrutiny.

So do I.

I'm pleased. Generally the best way in which the government can help is by staying out of people's affairs.

Hardly. Society is a nebulous term. The great advances in economics and in civilisation have been through the innovation and work of individuals, not through collectivism.

Think in terms of what the great philosophers, scientists and inventors achieved. Then look at the results of collectivism in the soviet union, former eastern Europe....

[John Cartmell]

Which is why the traditional rates were best when re-rating wasn't left to produce large difference and big changes.

[John Cartmell]

[Snip]

[Snip]

So it was you!

You're tryng to opt out of responsibility for the bad effects of what you support. I'm sure you would also like more state support for other things alongside cuts in income tax and VAT. ;-)