Food for thought - Climate Change

[Lmafudd]

Let's face it, it will be no better under Labour. If you can actually define their policies and that's a challenge, they appear to be saying that they will not turnover any of the decisions the current government have announced but they will tax private schools! How will that help? They also say that local mayors and councils will get more responsibility. God help us if that happens. They're diabolically poor managers and mainly self serving in my experience.

As for housing. The one thing that councils did do okay is run council housing. They should build more, but better LA housing and freeze out private landlords who may milk those poor individuals stuck in such a housing dilemma.

Clearly if we keep allowing over 600,000 migrants per annum, whether legal or illegal then we will never have enough housing and it's immoral giving anyone hope to only dump them in hostels and old manky hotels. Can't we put a stop on things and get ourselves set before we recommence being the generous nation that we have always been.

To be honest it is all very depressing.

[Linas.P]

It is all politics, but I can see the logic of taxing private schools... let's me start from saying - I don't even understand why private schools are needed at all and why can't everyone just use state schools? But apart of me being little bit ignorant in the topic... if the taxation from private schools goes into funding public schools then that is good (we obviously desire to bridge the gap between quality of education, everyone should get good quality education, not only rich, and if there would be no quality differences, then private schools would not exist)... obviously as we all know the tax money will inevitably going to be just throw into bottomless pit of government corruption and inefficiency and I doubt public schools would improve at all.

As for housing, I think overall goal is to make it affordable for anyone that has jobs and works, it does not need to be cheap, but it should be achievable goal without requiring 2 people to take mortgage for 40 years and £100,000 deposit. What I would like to be done here is progressive taxation on property i.e. normal council tax for first property, 50% higher for second property, double for third property, then quadruple for forth property and so on, as well making the owner to pay it, not tenant. Meaning that by the time one person has maybe 6 properties the burden of council tax should be too high and they can't get any more (lets say if average council tax is £1,300, then 2nd property would be - £1,950, 3rd - £2,600, 4th -£5,200, 5 - £10,400, 6th - £20,800 etc. So basically getting more properties for sub-letting after 3rd or 4th is already not economically viable). I may be wrong, but I would like to see convincing argument as to why ANYONE would need more than 6 different residential properties in UK under their name?! Please surprise me!

As for immigrants - this may be unpopular opinion, but UK desperately needs more immigrants as it is aging country where working age people can no longer carry the burden for those who have retired. So immigration is always net positive, and emigration is always a negative thing (brain drain). Obviously... there is the caveat - immigrants should only be welcome if they are willing to work and contribute. This is not EU fault, this is not immigrants fault, it is our government fault that they have not figured basics out. Very simple solution here - require minimum of 5 years contributions from employment before allowing people on the dole. Both immigrants and locally born British. This would actually fix several problems... the generational "benefit families", the premature family planning, the so called NEETs etc. Basically there would be high motivation for people to get into employment as early as they can in their life, get at least 5 years in and I can assure you this would fix majority of the problems. Once one is already in employment they change their world view and they are less likely to want to become passive takers, but there are loads of people who never even start working as option of simply being paid by state not to work is easier. Make no mistake - their life is miserable, but they don't know the alternative and by the time they are 30 years old without education, nor experience... they are no longer employable anyway. This would nicely act into reducing petty crime, stealing, burglaries, drug offences etc. 

Where I agree - yes it is very depressing, we have basically choice of two parties which are equally useless and we just have to choose one which is less useless than the other.

[Boomer54]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

Yes... and I think Labour is as well putting much emphasis on building homes, so it seems they want to draw battle lines between choosing the cars vs. homes. I can't personally see why can't we have both and I am sure that will be Tories response "yeah yeah - we will build homes as well"... except that they have tragic record of promising this over and over again and failing to deliver. That said Labour has quite poor record as well - they may deliver 1.5 million homes in 5 years, but those going by their previous achievement will be poor quality housing, perhaps good for slaves or animals, but not human occupation (sort of in line with communist ideals of blocks, communal everything, just a place for proletariat to live). As well 300,000 homes per year is not really a solution, as estimate is that we need at least 300,000 just to say on top of it, but we already have shortage of ~1.7 million homes, so proposed Labour plan really does not address the issue, just promises "not to make it worse". Really they would need to double their goal to achieve anything resembling the reasonable resolution.

Now the reason why Tories keeps promising homes and fails to build them is because... let's face it - average conservative voter is against building more homes, they are statistically likely to be older and have their homes, so building more homes and resolving the shortage would just depreciate their assets, so by keeping their promise Tories would undermine their base. Thinking about it - it is just so predictable that Labour is focusing on housing as that is what appeals to most of their voters and Tories focus on cars and climate goal softening. 

Just take it from me any party promising more homes is blowing smoke. On top of all the usual reasons why this promise never works out we have a real BLOCKER. We actually don't have the 'right' kind of labour that can deliver more homes. Yes, you can train people up for it, but seriously just how many years is that going to take to even begin to make a dent.

Personally, after over half a voting century my advice is just tune them all out and get on with your life. Nothing really changes. Indeed, the only positive I can find is I trust Sunak to be intellectually and financially more astute at running the GB Bank than anyone I can find in the labour party. My worst nighmare might be to wake up and find the next Chancellor of the Exchequer is.... where did I leave my passport !

 

[Boomer54]

33 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

It is all politics, but I can see the logic of taxing private schools... let's me start from saying - I don't even understand why private schools are needed at all and why can't everyone just use state schools? But apart of me being little bit ignorant in the topic... if the taxation from private schools goes into funding public schools then that is good (we obviously desire to bridge the gap between quality of education, everyone should get good quality education, not only rich, and if there would be no quality differences, then private schools would not exist)... obviously as we all know the tax money will inevitably going to be just throw into bottomless pit of government corruption and inefficiency and I doubt public schools would improve at all.

As for housing, I think overall goal is to make it affordable for anyone that has jobs and works, it does not need to be cheap, but it should be achievable goal without requiring 2 people to take mortgage for 40 years and £100,000 deposit. What I would like to be done here is progressive taxation on property i.e. normal council tax for first property, 50% higher for second property, double for third property, then quadruple for forth property and so on, as well making the owner to pay it, not tenant. Meaning that by the time one person has maybe 6 properties the burden of council tax should be too high and they can't get any more (lets say if average council tax is £1,300, then 2nd property would be - £1,950, 3rd - £2,600, 4th -£5,200, 5 - £10,400, 6th - £20,800 etc. So basically getting more properties for sub-letting after 3rd or 4th is already not economically viable). I may be wrong, but I would like to see convincing argument as to why ANYONE would need more than 6 different residential properties in UK under their name?! Please surprise me!

As for immigrants - this may be unpopular opinion, but UK desperately needs more immigrants as it is aging country where working age people can no longer carry the burden for those who have retired. So immigration is always net positive, and emigration is always a negative thing (brain drain). Obviously... there is the caveat - immigrants should only be welcome if they are willing to work and contribute. This is not EU fault, this is not immigrants fault, it is our government fault that they have not figured basics out. Very simple solution here - require minimum of 5 years contributions from employment before allowing people on the dole. Both immigrants and locally born British. This would actually fix several problems... the generational "benefit families", the premature family planning, the so called NEETs etc. Basically there would be high motivation for people to get into employment as early as they can in their life, get at least 5 years in and I can assure you this would fix majority of the problems. Once one is already in employment they change their world view and they are less likely to want to become passive takers, but there are loads of people who never even start working as option of simply being paid by state not to work is easier. Make no mistake - their life is miserable, but they don't know the alternative and by the time they are 30 years old without education, nor experience... they are no longer employable anyway. This would nicely act into reducing petty crime, stealing, burglaries, drug offences etc. 

Where I agree - yes it is very depressing, we have basically choice of two parties which are equally useless and we just have to choose one which is less useless than the other.

Private schools and yes I confess mine went that route start to finish. First we paid the school fees, no problem ,our choice afterall. Second , we paid our taxes that paid for the state schools our children did not attend, paying twice in effect, yes that's a problem. Third, our child being in private school frees up all of the resources they would otherwise be using if they were in a state school. For Lords sake just how many times do we have to pay for other peoples children to be educated ? Consider if you will we paid at least twice over for putting our child through private education. Once to the school, twice to the tax man, and 3rd to every other family that uses state education just by not having our child use up scarce resources leaving more for their child.

As you may gather from my tone this is a real topic of contention. I don't begrudge having paid to educate half the kids in the neighborhood and then probably employed a few, but I do object to having my wallet pillaged any more than it has been just because some ideologically blind idiot in Parliament can stand up and pretend to be a man of the people.

You know how airports have scanners. Can we not have one at the doors to Parliament that measures the IQ of those that enter rejecting those that could not successfully open a tin of baked beans without 3 pages of instructions? I am on it, designs to follow !

[DavidCM]

33 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

 

 

1 + 1 = ?

[Boomer54]

3 minutes ago, DavidCM said:

1 + 1 = ?

That's an easy one ,but please don't frame one that requires more than the use of digits on hands and feet.

For clarity in moderation we do not know who that person in the picture is. It is just a photofit sketch of someone who may exist upon some planet in this universe.

[Linas.P]

16 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

Private schools and yes I confess mine went that route start to finish. First we paid the school fees, no problem ,our choice afterall. Second , we paid our taxes that paid for the state schools our children did not attend, paying twice in effect, yes that's a problem. Third, our child being in private school frees up all of the resources they would otherwise be using if they were in a state school. For Lords sake just how many times do we have to pay for other peoples children to be educated ? Consider if you will we paid at least twice over for putting our child through private education. Once to the school, twice to the tax man, and 3rd to every other family that uses state education just by not having our child use up scarce resources leaving more for their child.

As you may gather from my tone this is a real topic of contention. I don't begrudge having paid to educate half the kids in the neighborhood and then probably employed a few, but I do object to having my wallet pillaged any more than it has been just because some ideologically blind idiot in Parliament can stand up and pretend to be a man of the people.

You know how airports have scanners. Can we not have one at the doors to Parliament that measures the IQ of those that enter rejecting those that could not successfully open a tin of baked beans without 3 pages of instructions? I am on it, designs to follow !

I get your point, but there is still an issue. If it would be up to me, then I don't believe I would allow private schools at all. This goes back to the point that EVERYONE should have a right to get same level of education and parents wealth should not have impact on quality of it. If the child is struggling is say math I have no issue for the parents to pay extra tuition to hire tutor just for that, but to send child into completely separate school smells of elitism for me. 

As well I don't agree with the point of "helping with scarce resource", no - the reason you send your kids to private school is for them to get BETTER education... and that is fine, you have right to do it, it makes sense, it was good decision etc. But I still don't like it, I consider a child to be at no fault for their parents decision in life, so if their parents are on drugs, or poor or made poor decision in their life, that does not mean the child has to be relegated to public school of inferior quality, so that when it comes to getting University places they are automatically left out from the best universities, because kids from private schools are just better educated. Again - am not hating people for being successful... I just don't like the "class or caste" system where poor gets public education and then get's into trash universities (yet pays same ridiculous £12,000 a year just for much worse degree). No - think kids should all have same opportunities regardless of the parents ability to send them to private schools. 

And hey - that is semantics really, we all know that kids from good families are more likely to be successful in life, if not for private education, then from general better advice, from being thought good values in life, from being given sound financial, personal, educational, s*e*x*ual, family planning advice etc. I just think it is wrong to have government instituted two tier system determined by the achievements of the parents and not the kids. 

At least that is my opinion. 

[Linas.P]

Just now, Boomer54 said:

That's an easy one ,but please don't frame one that requires more than the use of digits on hands and feet.

I guess that highlight the bigger issue with our government, or to be fair democracy as a whole... 

It is political system, not based on merits... people get position as Defence Minister without having any military knowledge, Transport Minister without having any knowledge of how transportation works, Education Minister without having any clue about education and in some cases not even having any formal education of their own, Health Minister without having the clue what doctor does wand without medical degree... that is madness that we give incompetent people to power to rule over the competent ones...

I know Meritocracy exists in theory as form of governance and I am not necessarily advocating for it, but I think there should be basic level of of entry criteria... ideally somebody who has clean record and does not have criminal history (more of an issue in US, but it is ridiculous that somebody like Trump are even allow to stand their candidacy), level of education (perhaps a degree) and then relevant experience, basically person should be qualified for the field they going to have oversight over. Sounds basic... but we are far far away from that. And I know they have advisors, civil servants etc.. but they still make decisions on things and it is hard to know if advisor is not talking shaite when you have no clue in the field at all... not even remote one!

[Boomer54]

9 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I get your point, but there is still an issue. If it would be up to me, then I don't believe I would allow private schools at all. This goes back to the point that EVERYONE should have a right to get same level of education and parents wealth should not have impact on quality of it. If the child is struggling is say math I have no issue for the parents to pay extra tuition to hire tutor just for that, but to send child into completely separate school smells of elitism for me. 

As well I don't agree with the point of "helping with scarce resource", no - the reason you send your kids to private school is for them to get BETTER education... and that is fine, you have right to do it, it makes sense, it was good decision etc. But I still don't like it, I consider a child to be at no fault for their parents decision in life, so if their parents are on drugs, or poor or made poor decision in their life, that does not mean the child has to be relegated to public school of inferior quality, so that when it comes to getting University places they are automatically left out from the best universities, because kids from private schools are just better educated. Again - am not hating people for being successful... I just don't like the "class or caste" system where poor gets public education and then get's into trash universities (yet pays same ridiculous £12,000 a year just for much worse degree). No - think kids should all have same opportunities regardless of the parents ability to send them to private schools. 

And hey - that is semantics really, we all know that kids from good families are more likely to be successful in life, if not for private education, then from general better advice, from being thought good values in life, from being given sound financial, personal, educational, s*e*x*ual, family planning advice etc. I just think it is wrong to have government instituted two tier system determined by the achievements of the parents and not the kids. 

At least that is my opinion. 

Hmm. "EVERYONE should have a right to get same level". Ok, let's consider that. for a moment. Is this 'right' specific to the topic of education? If so, why? If not, then does "Everyone" have a right to enjoy the same level of nutritional diet ? The "same" level of remuneration? The "same" longevity of life? You see where this going? You really cannot just step up and cherrypick where your sense of morality prompts you to. There is a lot of good intention behind such moral stances ,but invariably it fails upon direct examination of the human condition in that we are just simply not all the "same". You could perhaps start us all off with such a clean slate that we were all 'equal' ,but a day later it would no longer be true. You know it, I know it.

[Linas.P]

13 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

Hmm. "EVERYONE should have a right to get same level". Ok, let's consider that. for a moment. Is this 'right' specific to the topic of education? If so, why? If not, then does "Everyone" have a right to enjoy the same level of nutritional diet ? The "same" level of remuneration? The "same" longevity of life? You see where this going? You really cannot just step up and cherrypick where your sense of morality prompts you to. There is a lot of good intention behind such moral stances ,but invariably it fails upon direct examination of the human condition in that we are just simply not all the "same". You could perhaps start us all off with such a clean slate that we were all 'equal' ,but a day later ti would no longer be true. You know it, I know it.

Fair point, equality is harder to achieve in some areas of life compared to others... education is one where it is simple, in fact I came from country where we do not even have concept of "private school", there are only state schools and even with all their faults the level of education is many times better than in UK. Sorry to say, and I may be wrong, but we consider Brits "poorly educated", especially in sort of primary and secondary education. I certainly would not allow my kids even near British schools, even private ones. When it comes to higher education I believe British one is definitely better and is objectively recognised as one of the best in the world, BUT before the university and outside of private schools the education is very poor in UK. 

Would I believe kids should start as level as reasonably possible - yes, for education definitely, for nutritional diet as well... I don't think it is acceptable for society to have hungry kids (meal at school should kind of deal with it, but I agree we need more robust system), or for that matter overweight kids (I would punish any parents failing that harshly). In short - I believe kids regardless of their backgrounds should have "clean slate" start in the life, not malnutritional, educations is decent and judged on their own IQ and their own merits. Now sure - some people are just dumb and they inevitably will fail in their life, but no person should be punished because their parents were dumb. 

Is it cherry-picking... YES... but I rather call it "prioritisation", actually I think it is not hard to justify as education is one of main pillars holding our society and separating humans from other animals. We can't make everyone equal, we shouldn't for many good reason, but to give equal standing for kids to get equal and good level of education is really not high bar, nor controversial demand.

How far we should go to achieve it... I don't know that is good question, but good start would be removing inherent two tier system. 

[Boomer54]

9 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Fair point, equality is harder to achieve in some areas of life compared to others... education is one where it is simple, in fact I came from country where we do not even have concept of "private school", there are only state schools and even with all their faults the level of education is many times better than in UK. Sorry to say, and I may be wrong, but we consider Brits "poorly educated", especially in sort of primary and secondary education. I certainly would not allow my kids even near British schools. When it comes to higher education I believe British one is definitely better and is objectively recognised as one of the best in the world, BUT outside of private schools the education is very poor in UK. 

Would I believe kids should start as level as reasonably possible - yes, for education definitely, for nutritional diet as well... I don't think it is acceptable for society to have hungry kids (meal at school should kind of deal with it, but I agree we need more robust system), or for that matter overweight kids (I would punish any parents failing that harshly). In short - I believe kids regardless of their backgrounds should have "clean slate" start in the life, not malnutritional, educations is decent and judged on their own IQ and their own merits. Now sure - some people are just dumb and they inevitably will fail in their life, but no person should be punished because their parents were dumb. 

Is it cherry-picking... YES... but I rather call it "prioritisation". We can't make everyone equal, we shouldn't for many good reason, but to give equal standing for kids to get equal and good level of education is really not high bar, nor controversial demand.

Ok, then we should start the equalisation process. To do that we need to fund it. You can't do that by taking from people with hardly enough to begin with. No, they will be the beneficiaries. So, we must turn our sights to those that have it to spare. We may take a 'room temperature' reading on that by considering what do they drive. Obviously, if the beneficiaries drive nothing ,or a sub 10k car (pick a number), then equality might begin by selling off all cars over 10k, dumping the proceeds in the 'equalisation pot', and away we go in your now sub 10k new car.

I jest of course, but the underlying concept is still a truism. The have's (who have more than equality allows must always pay for these ideas to become a reality. It is interesting to observe exactly at what point does morality become financially unappealing. Answers to Keir Starmer on a voting ballot slip.

[Linas.P]

13 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

Ok, then we should start the equalisation process. To do that we need to fund it. You can't do that by taking from people with hardly enough to begin with. No, they will be the beneficiaries. So, we must turn our sights to those that have it to spare. We may take a 'room temperature' reading on that by considering what do they drive. Obviously, if the beneficiaries drive a noting ,or a sub 10k car, then equality might begin by selling off all cars over 10k, dumping the proceeds in the 'equalisation pot', and away we go in your now sub 10k new car.

I jest of course, but the underlying concept is still a truism. The have's (who have more than equality allows must always pay for these ideas to become a reality. It is interesting to observe exactly at what point does morality become financially unappealing. Answers to Keir Starmer on a voting ballot slip.

But why we start levelling education by charging people on cars - sorry link is missing. I might not even have kids now, or not even plan to have them in my life, why would I be funding education of other people kids from my car pot? Are we just assuming here that everyone will have kids? 

As well I think the "beneficiaries" of such proposal are confused... it is not parents that are beneficiaries, it is the kids... parent should be completely indifferent on what kind of education their kids are getting, as long as it is acceptable and not obviously detrimental. 

Isn't it better to "equalise the room temperature" by charging those with shared interest i.e. exactly the people who pay extra for private schooling despite having an option to send their kids to state school? Quite clearly they have excessive money for education if they can pay literally tens of thousands for thing that could be received for free. That is why I think idea of triple and quadruple charging those in private education quite appealing. I mean look - I am clearly biased, I just can't see the reason why private education exists at all, seems inherently flawed idea to allow for it to exist in the country altogether, so perhaps I am not the best "mediator" here. But... wouldn't you agree that if quality of education would be universally acceptable, not necessarily exceptional, but decent, the quality that would not hurt you in your life going forward and would not restrict your addition to neither universities, nor late the job market... then there would be no need to have private schools?

The the mere existence of private schools in itself is proof that public schools are failure... 

[DavidCM]

42 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

 

For clarity in moderation we do not know who that person in the picture is. It is just a photofit sketch of someone who may exist upon some planet in this universe.

Could it be this person...?

[Boomer54]

5 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

But why we start levelling education by charging people on cars - sorry link is missing. I might not even have kids now, or not even plan to have them in my life, why would I be funding education of other people kids from my car pot? Are we just assuming here that everyone will have kids? 

As well I think the "beneficiaries" of such proposal are confused... it is not parents that are beneficiaries, it is the kids... parent should be completely indifferent on what kind of education their kids are getting, as long as it is acceptable and not obviously detrimental. 

Isn't it better to "equalise the room temperature" by charging those with shared interest i.e. exactly the people who pay extra for private schooling despite having an option to send their kids to state school? Quite clearly they have excessive money for education if they can pay literally tens of thousands for thing that could be received for free. That is why I think idea of triple and quadruple charging those in private education quite appealing. I mean look - I am clearly biased, I just can't see the reason why private education exists at all, seems inherently flawed idea to allow for it to exist in the country altogether, so perhaps I am not the best "mediator" here. But... wouldn't you agree that if quality of education would be universally acceptable, not necessarily exceptional, but decent, the quality that would not hurt you in your life going forward and would not restrict your addition to neither universities, nor late the job market... then there would be no need to have private schools?

The the mere existence of private schools in itself is proof that public schools are failure... 

Now who is being literal? I was making the concept of what has to happen larger than life and easy to understand just by using 'cars' as an example. I could have just said, you know what forget what you earn gross ,we just let you keep the same as the guy you are going to subsidise AFTER you have subsidised him.

Then he can afford to feed and educate, perhaps cloth his children to the same level you do yours.

Sorry, Linas , I know you mean well, but life, politics, is not going to allow you to ringfence a couple of things you feel are injustices. The psychological unforeseen consequences of striving for equality are too numerous to even mention. In the drive for equality I suspect the outcome if achieved is that we all just end up poorer.

Frankly, if as I think is true, regarding your origins, you should already have seen this firsthand for yourself.

[Boomer54]

11 minutes ago, DavidCM said:

Could it be this person...?

I am shocked you think there is a resemblance.

[Boomer54]

I doubt we will find agreement so I would just like to say that I do not believe striving for some sort of 'average' that is equality is what put man on the moon, or LED us out of caves.

[Linas.P]

1 minute ago, Boomer54 said:

Now who is being literal? I was making the concept of what has to happen larger than life and easy to understand just by using 'cars' as an example. I could have just said, you know what forget what you earn gross ,we just let you keep the same as the guy you are going to subsidise AFTER you have subsidised him.

Then he can afford to feed and educate, perhaps cloth his children to the same level you do yours.

Sorry, Linas , I know you mean well, but life, politics, is not going to allow you to ringfence a couple of things you feel are injustices. The psychological unforeseen consequences of striving for equality are too numerous to even mention. In the drive for equality I suspect the outcome if achieved is that we all just end up poorer.

Frankly, if as I think is true, regarding your origins, you should already have seen this firsthand for yourself.

I am mostly taking everything literal unless specified otherwise - so be warned 😄 

As well I think the point which is being missed - is misdirection of benefit, you focusing on parents benefit vs. kids benefit. What I am saying - I do not care if parent can afford fuel, cigarettes, drugs, clothing their kids, or sending them to elite schools to get best education... as far as I am concerned they can be broke and die from hunger - that is their problem, they are adults they are responsible for themselves. I am talking about kids benefit - they are kids, they are not responsible for themselves, we as society are responsible for them and ideally we treat them all equally well, they should neither suffer, nor benefit from their parents decisions.

Secondly, I think you trying to conflate issues, whereas I am looking for problem solving... sure some of the solutions in my mind and the ones I proposed are idealistic and I am more than happy if somebody comes and pokes holes in them, if they are objectively flawed, unrealistic or unachievable. However, if problem can be ringfenced and solved, then I think that is exactly where we should start. Basically, this sounds to me like "perfect solution fallacy" i.e. because we can't fix everything, we should not even start fixing what we can. This is very inefficient way of dealing with problems, actually problem solving works in exactly opposite way - it is better to isolate smaller problem and deal with one problem at the time, as there are always going to be more and bigger problems which may be impossible to fix at fist. 

I didn't get your last point - sorry... thinking too literal... 

[Boomer54]

5 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I am mostly taking everything literal unless specified otherwise - so be warned 😄 

As well I think the point which is being missed - is misdirection of benefit, you focusing on parents benefit vs. kids benefit. What I am saying - I do not care if parent can afford fuel, cigarettes, drugs, clothing their kids, or sending them to elite schools to get best education... as far as I am concerned they can be broke and die from hunger - that is their problem, they are adults they are responsible for themselves. I am talking about kids benefit - they are kids, they are not responsible for themselves, we as society are responsible for them and ideally we treat them all equally well, they should neither suffer, nor benefit from their parents decisions.

Secondly, I think you trying to conflate issues, whereas I am looking for problem solving... sure some of the solutions in my mind and the ones I proposed are idealistic and I am more than happy if somebody comes and pokes holes in them, if they are objectively flawed, unrealistic or unachievable. However, if problem can be ringfenced and solved, then I think that is exactly where we should start. Basically, this sounds to me like "perfect solution fallacy" i.e. because we can't fix everything, we should not even start fixing what we can. This is very inefficient way of dealing with problems, actually problem solving works in exactly opposite way - it is better to isolate smaller problem and deal with one problem at the time, as there are always going to be more and bigger problems which may be impossible to fix at fist. 

I didn't get your last point - sorry... thinking too literal... 

Look in this country we have tried to make good intentions work. We started this way back after WW2. What we have found is it screws with human behaviour in ways we never foresaw. I am sure when Labour canned Grammar schools it was well intentioned, but who thinks that after that policy state education improved? If it's you please report to the nearest mental health facility. Indeed, If I looked I bet I would find that after this attempt to improve equality in education there was probably a boom in the uptake in private education.

So, no, I have no interest in  'perfect solution fallacy' , I would just be more than happy if your solution turned out to be better than what preceded it. I still await evidence on that point in this country.

When I talk about parental beneficiaries I probably did not make my point very clearly. It is this, because we collect and fund all public services centrally it is de facto the case that the effects of funding public issues is felt at the parental income level. It cannot be any other way. You want to help the child then funding ti centrally impacts the income earners (parents).

[Linas.P]

I do get the point that basically we have one big black hole of the budget and there isn't "ring fencing" in true way, even if I am somewhat unhappy about it, I believe it should be ring fence, particularly "roads fund" should only be raised from motorists and then only spend on the roads and nothing else, maybe in exceptional case to some big transport infrastructure project, but certainly not lost just in the common bucket.

That said accountable government should price their policies, and if they say that say 15% tax on private schools will raise whatever £5 billion a year, and at the same time they will spend £5bn more on public schools, then I think the "ins and outs" adds-up, and at least on the surface level this policy makes sense.

Now whenever it will all go wrong... yes it could, I don't think there is ever guarantee that policy will be successful and will achieve the desired results, some policies needs to be assessed and reversed, that would be example of working democracy if that were to happen... unlike certain "once in lifetime vote" which apparently can't be voted on again even if there is clearly different thing being delivered and majority opinion clearly has changed.

Finally, I consider education as a bedrock of the society, I think most of our problems comes from poor education, I would even speculate (conspiracy theory warning) that our ruling class quite likes uneducated people as they are easier to rule over, so perhaps there is underlying desire not to make massive success out of it and then become accountable to now educated society? Anyhow I still find it wrong that we have inherent two class society when it comes to education and I find it completely unacceptable, regardless how much it costs or who is paying for it. And again - perhaps we can agree that it is not necessary to have solution to be able to identify the problem. And this is one of them in my opinion. 

[Bluemarlin]

2 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

I doubt we will find agreement so I would just like to say that I do not believe striving for some sort of 'average' that is equality is what put man on the moon, or led us out of caves.

I have to say that I agree with a lot of what Linas is saying, and I don't think that he's saying that we should strive for some sort of average.

Fair warning, this has ended up longer than I intended, but to me it seems that the problems we face run far deeper than simply that of education, so I'll throw in my thoughts on it, for what they're worth.

What I believe Linas is saying is that we should strive for equality of opportunity, and not equality of outcome. Of course you're also right in that many won't take advantage of that opportunity, and so we'll still be left with an unbalanced society. But that's ok, as long as everyone has a fair chance, and where they end up is a result of their own choices/decisions. That's currently not the case though, and the fate of many is left mostly to an accident of birth, followed by an economic system that's largely weighted against them. If you doubt that, then you only have to look at the life of the lazy buffoon born into a wealthy family, compared to that of the average kid born into poverty. Or the fate of the failed small business owner, compared to that of the CEO of a failed bank or multinational.

I get it though, life isn't fair, and so it is what is, but it's not hard to see why many think that it's a broken way of doing things.

One problem I see is that we've been taught that free market capitalism provides a system that enables anyone willing to work hard to be successful, and that market forces are the only mechanism required to manage that efficiently. However, we can't, and never will have free markets. In order for businesses to remain successsful, or even survive, we have to manipulate things like interest rates, currency rates and, in some cases, provide subsidies. Jeez, we even have to spend billions on regulation, to prevent even our most respected banks, financial institutions and corporations from ripping people off. And yet still they do it, and face little more than a corporate fine, with no one going to prison for it. The poor and middle classes pay for these things. So, it's not unreasonable for money to flow in the other direction to help those at the bottom, in the form of higher taxes for the wealthy. It's the same principle, and is just more visible than the taxes, interest rates and increased prices that the less well off have to pay, to allow businesses to function profitably. And, for all practical purposes, profit is just another form of privately raised taxation.

Another problem is that such a system demands constant growth, and the drive for ever increasing profits. In itself there's nothing wrong with that, as market forces should mitigate unwarranted price rises by decreasing demand. A free market should therefore stabilise at some point, as the only way to stimulate demand at higher prices would be to increase wages proportionately. Instead though, to drive expenditure and growth, without a corresponding wage increase, other artificial mechanisms were introduced, such as easy credit and loan finance. This has resulted in the situation Linas referred to, where house prices have far outstripped income levels, and the same is happening for basics like food. One could even argue that gender equality, and the subsequent rise in women's incomes, and their numbers in the workforce, which should have delivered greater household wealth, instead simply LED to further increases in prices, and an increased need for borrowing. What began as a choice, to provide a financial bonus, soon became a financial necessity for many. So, even those willing to work, in order to provide a better life, soon get overtaken by the economic system we have.

I truly do get what you're saying though, in that it would seem unfair to take from those who've been successful in order to bring up the level of those who haven't. That's only true though if the successful haven't had advantages given to them in order to achieve and maintain that success, and the unsuccessful haven't been artficially held back. Therefore I don't believe in blindly taking from the wealthy to just give to those less well off. Instead I believe some of the protections afforded the wealthy should be removed, such as the ability to retain wealth in the form of salaries, pensions and bonuses when they fail, as well as prison sentences for senior executives of corporations who break the law. On the other side of the fence, I believe that workers should be given stronger powers to negotiate wages, so that they have an equal opportunity to use market forces to determine the price of their "product".

In this way no-one has to take from anyone in order to distribute wealth and resources more fairly, as it would put measures in place to allow the market to function more freely, and stop things swinging too much in any direction. Instead, everyone has a more equal opportunity to determine their path, and a more level playing field on which to follow it. Whatever system we have, there will always be those who will exploit it for their own ends, at both the top and bottom end of the financial spectrum. The best we can do is try to provide an environment where the majority have a fair chance of realising their potential and achieving their goals, however modest or ambitious they might be.

I don't know what the answer to achieving that is, but I do know that we're a long way from it.

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, Bluemarlin said:

equality of opportunity, and not equality of outcome.

That's only true though if the successful haven't had advantages given to them in order to achieve and maintain that success, and the unsuccessful haven't been artificially held back.

Indeed, and I hoped it was clearer that is what I am advocating for, but well summarised. Especially kids should have equal opportunities, regardless of their parents success or standing in the society, private schooling is just deeply rooted division, which further devices society. When I went to school we had all sorts of kids, some were poor, some where kids of known rich families, you could always tell who is from which family, but one great thing that happens - kids are kids, they find friends without snobbism of adults, yes sure there is always group of "cool" kids and group of "losers", but this is not necessarily divided by wealth. What that means is that kids from poor background can socialise with kids from rich back ground, that eventually their parents can socialise and that in my opinion brings society together... at least a little bit. But when society is separate from basically the birth, then no wonder there is no understanding or common ground.

And the second sentence I believe summarises my stance on private education quite well - the reality is that rich already have it better from the get go, even before they become adults and before they start deciding for themselves. And poor already are artificially held back by either worse education, or education that is at very least considered as inferior when university admissions are considered. It is not big secret that best universities prioritise kids from private schools.

As well I do recognise that not all private school kids are coming from rich people, some parents really prioritise their kids education and barely scrape by to get them into private school. What I am saying - this should never be necessary, the private schools perhaps could exist for parent benefit e.g. giving them more flexibility on when to take kids out on holidays and not being stupid with fines for missed classes, or maybe allowing dedicated parking, pick-up and drop off facilities, or other extracurricular benefits. But when it comes to core topic of kids education public schools should not provide inherently worse education, getting decent education should not be question of money. 

[Boomer54]

"I don't know what the answer to achieving that is, but I do know that we're a long way from it."

You would be a shoo in for the Nobel if you did.

Almost needless to say the issue of inequality is not a simple one. Should be needless to say if it were it probably would have already been resolved more than it has been. What is clear is this. Taxing the rich more will not do it. It is the default solution for almost everybody of a socialist slant, but it ignores the fact that capturing that wealth is an impossible task for any government. Basically, the wealth flees for pastures new. There are a number of high profile names who have done that in just the last couple of years as they found that no party in this country was a safe harbour for them. So, take their taxes out of the pot and the target zone moves gradually further down the wealth scale at the targets less likely to flee. Enter the 'wealthy' middle classes. Not 'rich' just well off and probably so not through being born into wealth per se. See where this is going? You start with some idealistic target and then come slap bang up against reality. As a general rule it's safe to say that the measures to capture more tax to fund public ideals ends up capturing less ,because it fails to encompass behavioural changes that take place as a reaction to the action taken. You don't have to take my word for it. I think there is already enough research out there.

Frankly, I think there is a lot more mileage to resolving this issue to be had by first of all cutting the huge amount of fat from public waste and inefficiency.

[Boomer54]

4 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Indeed, and I hoped it was clearer that is what I am advocating for, but well summarised. Especially kids should have equal opportunities, regardless of their parents success or standing in the society, private schooling is just deeply rooted division, which further devices society.

And the second sentence I believe summarises my stance on private education quite well - the reality is that rich already have it better from the get go, even before they become adults and before they start deciding for themselves. And poor already are artificially held back by either worse education, or education that is at very least considered as inferior when university admissions are considered. It is not big secret that best universities prioritise kids from private schools.

As well I do recognise that not all private school kids are coming from rich people, some parents really prioritise their kids education and barely scrape by to get them into private school. What I am saying - this should never be necessary, the private schools perhaps could exist for parent benefit e.g. giving them more flexibility on when to take kids out on holidays and not being stupid with fines for missed classes, or maybe allowing dedicated parking, pick-up and drop off facilities, or other extracurricular benefits. But when it comes to core topic of kids education public schools should not provide inherently worse education, getting decent education should not be question of money. 

For goodness sake can we please stop with the stereotypes that lead you up the wrong path from the very start. You say you know little about the private education system and I can tell you that is very true. You appear to have this idea that private schools are wall to wall with rich kids from born into wealth families. You could not be further from the truth. They are a minority. Most of the kids there come from working families who choose to use their income to improve their childrens education and future prospects. You could call it an investment into the future. Many of them do without things, forego the pleasures of that new car, those holidays ,because doing so funds their childrens education. That is a much better description of those children and their families than the one you are carrying around. It's unfortunate that the minority get all the attention when it comes to the media .because that is I suspect what fosters these stereotypes.

[Linas.P]

39 minutes ago, Boomer54 said:

1. You say you know little about the private education system and I can tell you that is very true.

2. Most of the kids there come from working families who choose to use their income to improve their childrens education and future prospects. You could call it an investment into the future.

1. That is not wat I have said, what I have said is that I am biased, because I inherently despise it, I think it creates artificial divisions in the society, I believe it gives undue influence from parents to the child's future, I think that it inherently condemns kids whose parents does not care for sad outcomes in their life. So it is not that I don't understand it, I am just openly advocating for them to be abolished. I am saying parent should not have such a direct route in putting their kids ahead of the curve... I think this is like cheating. As for analogy - imagine there is marathon between kids, you can let your child to compete fairly and on their merits from the start line or your can "invest into their future" and pay the high fee that other families either can't afford or are not willing to pay and you can get your kid to start marathon from 10 miles mark. Now sure some kids going to be so useless that even starting 10 miles ahead of their peers they still going to be overtaken, but for poor kids they have to run full length and winning it is just not an option, even if they are truly better runners. This is just "unsportsmanlike" basically. And I am not talking quiet part out loud, this is "out loud part" - paying for your kids private education brings them to the front of the pack, this is fact, everyone knows it, that is why private schools exists.

2. And that is literally what I said - I said that some people will make sacrifices and will invest into the future of their kids, as per point #1 that is inherently an issue in itself. Call me idealist, call me purist, call me whatever you like - what I am saying (after gulping large glass of wine mind you) parents should not be allowed to "invest into the future of their kids, by means of paying money". Good advise sure, leading by example sure, but basically buying them a place in prestigious university - no the ffing way. 

Very simply what I want and what I am advocating for (as Bill said - "equal opportunity not the equal outcome"). Is that smart kid should be first and the dumb one should be last, that they all get equal opportunity and the smartest ones becomes most successful - I think there is genuine value for the society for this to happen, because when dumb people are successful we are all in deep trouble - wouldn't you agree?!

What I want to happen is that when kid is real dumb, then it does not matter where they coming from or if they been in private education... I want the to go and study gender studies, or marine biology or African dances... and with education as such I want them to be take out of any public office or any decision making at all. And this is not hate towards rich people, or kids in private schools, it is a hate of dumb people being successful and deciding how our society should work because their parents literally bought their places in school and university. 

Your mere admission that "private schooling is sacrificing money to pay for your kids future" is an "investment", basically proves my point, that is the whole problem. That is what I am talking about. This should not be possible, it should not be possible to make mediocre intelligence person successful in life by paying for private education... because this happens at the cost of really smart person being unsuccessful, because they never had same opportunities, because parent decisions can make or brake it. No education should be same for everyone... nobody should have a head start because their parents paid for it.  

[Boomer54]

40 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

1. That is not wat I have said, what I have said is that I am biased, because I inherently despise it, I think it creates artificial divisions in the society, I believe it gives undue influence from parents to the child's future, I think that it inherently condemns kids whose parents does not care for sad outcomes in their life. So it is not that I don't understand it, I am just openly advocating for them to be abolished. I am saying parent should not have such a direct route in putting their kids ahead of the curve... I think this is like cheating. As for analogy - imagine there is marathon between kids, you can let your child to compete fairly and on their merits from the start line or your can "invest into their future" and pay the high fee that other families either can't afford or are not willing to pay and you can get your kid to start marathon from 10 miles mark. Now sure some kids going to be so useless that even starting 10 miles ahead of their peers they still going to be overtaken, but for poor kids they have to run full length and winning it is just not an option, even if they are truly better runners. This is just "unsportsmanlike" basically. And I am not talking quiet part out loud, this is "out loud part" - paying for your kids private education brings them to the front of the pack, this is fact, everyone knows it, that is why private schools exists.

2. And that is literally what I said - I said that some people will make sacrifices and will invest into the future of their kids, as per point #1 that is inherently an issue in itself. Call me idealist, call me purist, call me whatever you like - what I am saying (after gulping large glass of wine mind you) parents should not be allowed to "invest into the future of their kids, by means of paying money". Good advise sure, leading by example sure, but basically buying them a place in prestigious university - no the ffing way. 

Very simply what I want and what I am advocating for (as Bill said - "equal opportunity not the equal outcome"). Is that smart kid should be first and the dumb one should be last, that they all get equal opportunity and the smartest ones becomes most successful - I think there is genuine value for the society for this to happen, because when dumb people are successful we are all in deep trouble - wouldn't you agree?!

What I want to happen is that when kid is real dumb, then it does not matter where they coming from or if they been in private education... I want the to go and study gender studies, or marine biology or African dances... and with education as such I want them to be take out of any public office or any decision making at all. And this is not hate towards rich people, or kids in private schools, it is a hate of dumb people being successful and deciding how our society should work because their parents literally bought their places in school and university. 

Your mere admission that "private schooling is sacrificing money to pay for your kids future" is an "investment", basically proves my point, that is the whole problem. That is what I am talking about. This should not be possible, it should not be possible to make mediocre intelligence person successful in life by paying for private education... because this happens at the cost of really smart person being unsuccessful, because they never had same opportunities, because parent decisions can make or brake it. No education should be same for everyone... nobody should have a head start because their parents paid for it.  

Got you. " gives undue influence from parents to the child's future". Lord forbid any of us care enough about our children that we wish to try to 'influence' their future.

I really am proving nothing at this point other than it is perfectly natural for a parent to try and raise their child to the best of their ability. You seem to have a problem with that which I really don't wish to get into.

I will leave the issue here ...bon voyage.