BBC Blog Network

User Profile

pawns_or_players

Listed below are comments made by pawns_or_players between Friday, 18th September 2009 and Thursday, 29th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

When hope is all that's left 1:11pm on 29 Oct 2009 Being UK based I have to fight the urge to regard the way Americans apparently treat other Americans as deplorable. Healthcare, and welfare state generally, or rather the lack of them, sum it up.

Preliminary view dictates that in the US, the wealthiest country in the world, there is no safety net leading to a catastrophic risk to all people that it is all too easy to fall by the wayside if you lose your job- or as you highlight, even if your hours are only cut. That can't be right.

But, as with most things, the more you think about it and take the emotion out, the more balanced you have to be. The US clearly do have a safety net of sorts, perhaps more linked to religious institutions than Europeans are used to. The church of England, the Vatican- these are extremely wealthy institutions who are not as visible in their assistance of domestic populations in need, in Europe as their US counterparts.

So who would I rather have help me if I needed help? An elected government/pseudo government department, or a religious body/group. Not as easy to answer as i'd have thought. The government department is subject to bureacracy and budget cuts/limits- there is more of a stigma to religious assistance (here at least). Actually- the honest answer is that if I needed help, i'd be grateful to whoever, however it was provided...it really wouldn't matter.

A fantastic post which made me think.
Bank reform: The radical way 3:55pm on 21 Oct 2009 Hi there RP - hope all is well.

Good luck with the family matters.

Interesting dabble into politics at the end there. There can be no doubt that a political change is generally sought but it might prove a false dawn in the short term if the change is to the centre right and the bankers think that will help them. Playing to the masses is more important than almost ever before, I for one don't blame the bankers entirely- sure, a lot, but not entirely, but the media witch hunt goes on...

Bankers are easy targets and that makes them political capital, for any party. Further, resolving the financial mess will earn kudos and brownie points in front of the electorate, as will capping/meddling/reducing the bonus culture in the city, which does need to be capped/meddled and reduced in any event.

However, if the suggestion is that those in the city don't think the Conservatives will/would take on the above I think they're in denial over how important it is to DC to be the 'pop prime minister'. It all smacks a bit of 'new labour' at the moment- and just ask the unions how much new labour achieved for them in the last decade.

[Irony in light of postal strike noted]
G20: History and fudge 6:23pm on 25 Sep 2009 #38 Star Trekker

The growth sought and achieved previously was not real growth, but created via a bubble of inflated assets and debt- a restriction in that type of growth can't be a bad thing, can it?

Whatever happened to organic growth? A bank being linked to growth in the real economy? How often do we see and hear at the moment of the SME's who can't get finance though their business is sound, and yet QE has re capitalised the banks? If one of the effects of the restrictions is to restrict paper growth but to incentivise real growth I can't see how that is a bad thing.

The banks should want to help SME's to grow, to assist them in that process, sure- so that they can make more money, but the point is that the incentive to recklessly lend is restricted as they have finite lending power/ability.

The tricky part is to make sure that the ratio is at a level where there is enough fairly priced credit available, the fear/problem being that in boom years the ratio would simply be increased to ensure that there is cheap credit available, and low/poor/difficult analysis as to risk.

Regardless as to the amount of leverage there is risk in the deal/loan- and risk is almost impossible to assess regardless of what they say, see the ratings of Icelandic banks 6months before going under (all rated at the highest level). The benefit to the taxpayer is that there isn't a bottomless pit.
G20: History and fudge 11:53am on 25 Sep 2009 I think setting a multiple for lending to capital ratios is extremely positive...if it happens, and provided there are no caveats.

If lending ability is finite and proportionate (albeit flexible depending on ability to increase capital) then it would logically follow that there is an incentive to increase the quality of lending on that specific bank's books. It follows that the risk to the taxpayer should be mitigated, though never extinguished.

However, life is never this simple and the industry is full of bright sparks who are clever at designing new products with more skill than an alcamist's apprentice- see CDO's for example. I can already envisage one banking institution 'selling' their lending power (or percentages thereof) to other institutions for higher 'guaranteed' returns (unachievable and risky 'sub prime' actually 'high risk' loans), and insuring themselves against any potential loss. That may not be technically possible, forgive my feeble attempts- but you get the jist.

The point is that supervisory regulation has got to be far far tighter- the 'checks and balances' between the treasury, FSA and BofE are all over the place. Clear responsibility, rapid response and significant penal powers against lending institutions and crucially Directors in their personal capacity. 'Light touch' but with a significant bite they aren't afraid to use rather than light touch with a whimper- it doesn't wash.
What's in Cadbury's wrapper? 1:13pm on 24 Sep 2009 #4 Writings

Unfortunately very true, i'd actually go further- the Midlands as a whole region is suffering really very badly, not just Birmingham. As the regional epicentre and with a truely (and previously well commented) horrendous property bubble/mess the effects are amplified there.

And now Jaguar's prowl is turning into more of a whimper too..they're on the move with yet another factory. What on earth are all the people supposed to do? Move and become a 'consultant' is my guess, not that I believe in protectionism or manufacturing for manufacturing's sake, does make you wonder though.
Should students pay our bills? 5:31pm on 23 Sep 2009 #165-Allan

Here we are again.

ME; ' "Private schools are charities and the value of the tax breaks you refer to are c£100million per year."

YOU; It is quite clear that, according to your own words, I am contributing to providing toards a subsidy on fees for private school children.'

Sorry to be pedantic. Do you realise what a subsidy is? It is a grant or gift of money. Show me the payment from government to any private education establishment? You won't, there aren't any.

A subsidy is entirely different to a 'tax break'. A tax break is not charging tax via whatever mechanism. One does not equal the other. The point I make is that the money circulating in the private education system has already been taxed.

In effect you are advocating a discriminatory tax, assuming that this only applies to the wealthy when as has been commented many in the private system are actually simply opting out of a failing state system. The assumption that you make about who would pay such a tax is strikingly similar to that proposed with poll tax, not exactly a runaway success.

ME; '"Tax breaks in private education do not equal sponging off the state."

YOU; Rubbish, they clearly are. It is taxpayers money being provided to private organisations in order to keep down the fees they charge to the better off. You just don't like the label 'sponger' to be applied to the middle classes. You only think that label applies to the poor and do not like your hypocrisy being pointed out.'

See above. There are no payments towards private education establishments. There is no government aid or benefit. The premise of your suggestion is misconceived. For the record I don't like the label sponger being used when it doesn't apply, you're right. Please don't make unfounded assumptions, about me or my opinions. There are spongers in all walks of life, class has nothing to do with it, neither does education. Stigma and assumption will get you nowhere.

ME; '"Parents who fund their children via private education are already taxed twice- through taxes on their income and the fees they pay to the school. You would ask them to pay a third time?"

YOU; What rubbish are you talking about here? I am not saying they should be taxed. I am saying they should not receive tax breaks and that I should not be subsidising their children for going to a private school.'

Blimey. Its not the individual parents who receive any tax break- it is via the charitable status of the schools that this is achieved. The school receives the tax break, not the parent. The point is that the parents are taxed, twice. Thats the situation at the moment. You aren't subsidising anybody...well actually you are. You are subsidising the children who go to state schools as your tax helps fund them. Private schools receive no money from government so the children educated there dont benefit from your taxes, hence (irony noted) the only people you subsidise are state school kids.

ME; '"Private schools are charities and the value of the tax breaks you refer to are c£100million per year."

YOU; So, what? The amount does not matter whether it is £100 million or £100 billion, it is the principal that matters.'

Lets all argue about the price of stamps then shall we? Get Crozier down here I think its deplorable. The question is one of reasonableness and proportionality, cost;benefit ratio. You refer to me as a Daily Mail supporter (chortle!) yet I suspect you'll be kicking off about the grotesque asylum problem (even though statistically its insignificant). Great, thanks for coming.

Your principle is that you dont want to subsidise kids in private education and you want all kids to go to state school, when there isn't a subsidy for private school kids and there is for the state system. Fantastic cogent argument that.

YOU; 'You may think the whole of the country's wealth comes only from those at private school but I am not convinced the facts would support you on that.'

Sorry- where do I state that? You're wrong, I didn't. You're assuming everyone at private school plays croquet at lunch with an afternoon tea break. Its about quality of education for most parents and many only just manage the fees.

YOU; 'In addition, since it is clear the state pension will either be got rid off or worth nothing by the time I retire so I am making my own provision.'

SWEET IRONY! You have a private pension?! Hilarious, you do realise that you personally benefit massively from tax breaks from this dont you? By your argument I am subsidising your pension! Why not end that tax break too you cheeky bugger! Incidentally tax breaks on pensions make £100million look like a drop in the ocean! Please jump down from the moral high ground before you fall.

YOU; 'What we see from you is the typical 'Daily Mail' approach. The poor are spongers for benefiting from benefits/tax breaks but don't you DARE say the same of me when I benefit from the same!'

Oh dear. Lets be clear, the poor are not spongers for claiming benefits. I approve with the welfare state- actually, i'm proud of it. There are people who abuse the system and thats wrong. There are also many public school kids who never work a day and get mother and father to pay for everything. More fool their parents, they are also spongers and it is also wrong. I note that by your own admission you're looking forward to becoming a sponger, well done.

YOU; 'The bottom line is, if you want your kids to go to a private school you should pay the WHOLE cost of that and not sponge off the rest of us. If you cannot afford that then get on your bike and find a better paying job.'

So here we are again. Private school parents already pay for private education. As charities private schools do not make a profit. The income used to pay the fees is taxed. Why then, should they be taxed again? Answer- they shouldn't be. To refresh your memory a private education is not always about this silver spoon image/dream you seem hell bent on maintaining, actually its about quality education where the system is failing in certain areas.

Your assumptions, prejudice and comments about me seem more linked and associated with the Daily Mail than my own and thats the greatest irony in what you say.
Should students pay our bills? 12:09pm on 23 Sep 2009 #161 allan

'You mean is it right that Gothnet should pay the cost of sending his children to a private school rather than being subsidised by everyone else?

Yes.

A lot of the subsidies come from people who either cannot afford to do the same (it is not possible for everyone to) or, like me, who have no children.

If Gothnet wants his kids to have the benefits that come from going to private school he should pay for them.

At the moment people who send their kids to private school are just sponging off the rest of us.'

You should work for the Fox network.

Gothnets parents already pay(paid). There is no subsidy and you have not contributed one single penny towards his education. You have had the benefit of his parents paying taxes on their income and then central government not having to pay the LEA to educate him. They have spent the money on other things (ask them on what).

Tax breaks in private education do not equal sponging off the state. Private schools are charities and have a wider public benefit. They should not be taxed in the same way as a business. What would happen if they were? The fees would increase creating a distorted inequality between the haves and the have not's. You would presumably state that this describes the situation now? And yet gothnet provides an excellent example where private education was the only alternative to a failing state system, not exactly a 'have' if the traditional view is taken. No money is 'taken' from the state to fund private education and never has been.

Private schools are charities and the value of the tax breaks you refer to are c£100million per year. Thats a lot of money but is paltry in comparison to our bankers bailout. The government probably claim that in expenses in any given parliament. Sledge hammer/Walnut springs to mind.

Parents who fund their children via private education are already taxed twice- through taxes on their income and the fees they pay to the school. You would ask them to pay a third time? Lunacy and morally wrong. Improve the state system- yes, absolutely, but do not penalise and close the only escape when it fails.

Your suggestion (implied) is like suggesting that you shouldn't be entitled to a state pension as you haven't had any children to pay for it. I don't agree with that either for the record.
Should students pay our bills? 09:53am on 23 Sep 2009 Sagamix@ #154

'(1) you say make state schools so good that the private sector withers on the vine - great, but what if the very existence of the private sector prevents that outcome? - in my view, it does

(2) far from discouraging private schools, we give them tax breaks - treat them as charities! - crazy or what?

(3) you say private schools no longer give a significant advantage, and yet you also admit that standards are generally higher there - doesn't seem to hang together - I do take your point about the Old Boy Network, but one surefire way to break that up would be doing what I suggest - I think something like 50 pc of Top Uni intake is drawn from the 7 pc of children who go to private schools - that says a lot, does it not?

and my killer point ...

(4) if the most affluent and influential members of our society ... the movers and the shakers ... our leaders ... don't use a service (state education in this case) then they will have far less interest in improving it than if they DID use it ... don't you see?'

I'm afraid I don't broadly agree.

(1) To suggest that a lack of competition will improve service quality is not something I can agree with. Competition is vital to improve standards. It is right that politicians are hard pressed to improve the quality of education and are embarassed into explaining where all the money has gone and why another local school, but a private one, is achieving better results (N.B if it is, note earlier comments as to successful grammar schools).

(2) Tax breaks for private schools really touches on the essence of the issue, arguably I agree that they should be removed. There are two points which need to be considered however. First, as with gothnet- the decision in that case (and in many other similar families) to send children to private education is arrived at as a result of a failure in the existing system. One of the effects of ending tax breaks would be to significantly increase the cost of the private education system. Is it right that gothnet's parents should have to pay yet more money, increase their debt yet further as a result of the state failure to provide an effective education? Bearing in mind they (presumably) pay taxes just like anyone else anyway? The purpose of the tax breaks is partly to ensure that gothnet's parents are not taxed yet again.

The state system benefits from the system as gothnets parents pay for state education anyway, though they do not use it. Or at least this would be the case were it not for the fact that central government retain the money and only pay LEA's per child. Vent at government in that regard.

Finally (on this point) children are not taxable commodities and it is slightly vulgar to consider in effect taxing them for going to school. Why are childrens clothes cheaper? Why not tax them too?

(3) As to the advantage that private education brings. If there is a benefit, and I think there is- then I accept that there shouldn't be, state education should be such that there is no demand for private education. For example due to the survival of more grammar schools in the South there are far fewer private schools than, for example in the Midlands. There is a distinction between an improved education and a social advantage. Where they exist I think broadly private education is of a better quality. That does not mean that there is a social advantage to going to such a private school- i.e. old boy network. To the vast majority there is no social benefit in this way- no invitations, no connections, no events. That's the stuff of Hollywood.

There is a minority, and I firmly believe it is an infinetisimally small minority, that benefit socially from their education- and we are talking about 'public' schools here rather than private. There i'm sure you'll find the old boy network of which you speak and perhaps rightly do not agree with. But then, hang on a minute- you can't suggest that gothnet's parents should feel an impact as a result of legislating against that, surely not? And that really is the rub of the problem, how to differentiate between the two.

Top university intake is tricky to define. They change regularly and it is subjective as one person values their degree subject over another. The red brick universities are one way to look at it and there is a further problem here. Government, in its wisdom, has legislated that a percentage of places must go to state pupils. Public schools are known to sponsor places for their pupils guaranteeing places (wrong). Guess what? Private school kids are left in no-mans land.

I know parents who have educated their children privately to 6th form then put them into a state 6th form so as to ensure that they can get into a decent university. Such actions smash the old-boy network theory to pieces.

University places should be based on merit. It is really very simple. Certainly not based on a gross assumption of your social background bourne out of where you went to school, or what your parents had to pay to give you an education, its crazy. The caveat here is that if the education is better in private schools then you would expect more privately educated children to go to the top universities. Again, the aim of the state system must be to educate their pupils, to create such an environment within that education system that they achieve the best results. The only point at which positive discrimination should be arguably applied is when two children with identical grades apply for the same place, but even then lets have a nice objective test (yes another test) to cut the wheat from the chaff, not to assume that the state pupil needs a hand.

(4) We elect our politicians. We elect them to represent our interests, to develop, design and implement policy in such a way that we agree with. If our politicians do not represent us, then why do we elect them? Don't vote for people who don't represent you.

N.B You can't force everyone to experience something (everything) so that they understand how it works!

Following your argument we should ensure that all politicians have used the NHS (to make sure that they understand and fully appreciate how it works), so lets put them all in hospital? They need to understand the police too- so lets lock them up? And they've never been involved in a fire so lets burn their houses down? Not quite right is it.

We've come to accept less but politicians should have, as a pre-requisite, the empathy and understanding to represent the views of an electorate which in part has experienced an entirely different life to their own.
Should students pay our bills? 5:37pm on 22 Sep 2009 Sagamix i'm afraid you've rather lost the plot on this one, i'm with gothnet.

Raiding private school/public school parents and/or blaming them for social inequality is grossly misleading and actually quite wrong. A private vs state education has far lesser impact on social mobility than was once the case. This is not because private schools have been banned, or have become more expensive on a pro-rata basis. Actually it is because the quality of education has generally increased across the board.

Re Gothnet you seem to imply that it is so important that everyone is treated equally to the extent that being in a worse position as an individual should be acceptable. Her/His parents should have accepted that the school would toughen her up and should have taken it on the chin. The comment and premise is fundamentally flawed. We want what is best for our children.

It is wrong that private education is 'better' than state education and that is the rub, it really shouldn't be. State education needs to improve, but it is essential that there remains a reference point for success, success in the investment and achievement of government and the public education sector. It should not become a black hole for investment. The tax payer (including gothnet's parents) are entitled to more bang for their buck.

The quality of state education is simply not, across the whole (and a gross generalisation), as good as the private sector. The private sector's only real sales pitch is that it offers a better quality education. Scrapping private education is not the key. Strategic investment and incentives for retaining quality staff is absolutely the key. If society values teachers then pay them more.

If parents (whose income is taxed anyway) decide to save their pennies and invest in their children, what right does society have to dictate or legislate against that? The point is that the quality of state education should be such that the private sector dies its own death due to lack of demand. Perhaps wishful thinking, perhaps not. In some areas of the country Grammar schools have been so successful and are so well respected that there is no private sector to speak of. Yet perhaps you would disregard the grammar school system as selection of the pupils with the most academic ability is not socially inclusive?

Unfortunately we are not all the same, academic or otherwise. To suggest, or even remotely contemplate, a one size fits all education policy is flawed.

I fear that actually you are talking about the old-boy network- and your problems are concerned with that. The vast majority of the private education sector simply don't belong to that club and they reap no benefit from it.

As an aside referring to someone as 'babe' undermines the persuasive elements of what you say.
Lloyds: Mind the GAPS 4:08pm on 18 Sep 2009 #25

A brilliant idea, and also extremely common with commercial property...

Watch them run, not a chance- they'd probably insure themselves against the risk!

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

pawns_or_players