Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

[greenmark]

It’s well documented that the Monarchy generate between 4 and 50 times the cost to the taxpayer. Regardless of my personal beliefs, I really don’t understand the arguments.

Yes they have great privileges. After the handgun ban, Prince Phillip was exempt and allowed to keep and shoot his Luger pistol at Chelsea Army Barracks. No doubt he was also exempt from being prosecuted if he decided to shoot it at any Royal Estate. At the end of the day, who cares. After leaving the Army I too was allowed to possess banned firearms to the public as was issued a Home Office Section 5 licence. Did I have good reason, No I did not. Very often in life, it’s not what you know but who you know or a combination of both.

While still in the UK I would be allowed to fire sub machine guns at the Police Firearms Training Centre at Gatwick. I was not a Police Firearms Officer, past or present and had no lawful authority to do so. But I still got an invite twice a month.

My point, stop thinking the Royal Family are the only ones with privileges.

Ask the PwC accountancy firm how many MP’s and others they advise on legal tax avoidance. It would probably make you sick.

I agree. The concept of Monarchy wrankles with a lot of people. But the rest of the world adore our royalty and that's a big plus. It's true Andrew is the black sheep but Charles is unblemished (apart from thinking that talking to plans is beneficial) and William it seems has impressed Trump. Ok my argument fell at the last fence there but perhaps charming lunatic leaders is a skill few of us have.

[Archery1969]

It’s well documented that the Monarchy generate between 4 and 50 times the cost to the taxpayer. Regardless of my personal beliefs, I really don’t understand the arguments.

Yes they have great privileges. After the handgun ban, Prince Phillip was exempt and allowed to keep and shoot his Luger pistol at Chelsea Army Barracks. No doubt he was also exempt from being prosecuted if he decided to shoot it at any Royal Estate. At the end of the day, who cares. After leaving the Army I too was allowed to possess banned firearms to the public as was issued a Home Office Section 5 licence. Did I have good reason, No I did not. Very often in life, it’s not what you know but who you know or a combination of both.

While still in the UK I would be allowed to fire sub machine guns at the Police Firearms Training Centre at Gatwick. I was not a Police Firearms Officer, past or present and had no lawful authority to do so. But I still got an invite twice a month.

My point, stop thinking the Royal Family are the only ones with privileges.

Ask the PwC accountancy firm how many MP’s and others they advise on legal tax avoidance. It would probably make you sick.

I agree. The concept of Monarchy wrankles with a lot of people. But the rest of the world adore our royalty and that's a big plus. It's true Andrew is the black sheep but Charles is unblemished (apart from thinking that talking to plans is beneficial) and William it seems has impressed Trump. Ok my argument fell at the last fence there but perhaps charming lunatic leaders is a skill few of us have.

+ 1

I guess some think it would be good to get rid of them, sell the crown estates and build more housing. Fair enough.

But if the figures are correct and they generate £1.76 Billion anually to the British economy then someone will need to plug that gap. No doubt, the tax payer. No idea how much the crown estates are worth but you can only sell them once. Probably big income short term but what do you do once they sold. Plus i not even sure it would be legal to do so. No idea how the UK Supreme Court Would rule on that. You would also piss off allot of people, private citizens and Armed Forces. Parliament may think its in charge but only takes a couple of thousand soldiers with access to naughty stuff to cause absolute havoc which the Police could not match etc.

[sionascaig]

I guess some think it would be good to get rid of them, sell the crown estates and build more housing. Fair enough.

But if the figures are correct and they generate £1.76 Billion anually to the British economy then someone will need to plug that gap. No doubt, the tax payer. No idea how much the crown estates are worth but you can only sell them once. Probably big income short term but what do you do once they sold. Plus i not even sure it would be legal to do so. No idea how the UK Supreme Court Would rule on that. You would also piss off allot of people, private citizens and Armed Forces. Parliament may think its in charge but only takes a couple of thousand soldiers with access to naughty stuff to cause absolute havoc which the Police could not match etc.

I really don't think you can put a value on the crown estates, e.g. it includes the sea floor and land up to high tide. But its owned by the state already not the Monarch.

The Monarch just gets a cut on profits it generates and manages the Crown Estate with the oversight of the amongst others the PM. So when there was a recent auction of wind farm licenses the Monarch got a huge windfall (which he says will be used to upgrade Bucky Palace).

It is what it is and the Gov could change it at any time... Most of us would not even notice.

No one is talking about getting rid of the Royal family. It's more about a review of what they are responsible & accountable for.

But I think there has been some good points made on privilege, privacy & value added and you & Firlandsfarm have probably softened my views a bit )

(although I am certainly not going to admit that)

[firlandsfarm]

Ask the PwC accountancy firm how many MP’s and others they advise on legal tax avoidance. It would probably make you sick.

Loved that comment Archery just annoyed I didn't think of it when tax planning was my career! From what she has told us it's clear to me that Angela Raynor took high level tax advice over her administration of her affairs before selling 'that house'. There are things you can do that can substantially reduce any CGT liability, maybe even remove it all together (as she discovered). It's rumoured Arthur Scargill is worth some £5 million, I have no idea how he built such a fortune if the rumour is accurate but I bet he took tax avoidance advice. But the Luvvies don't want to talk about them.

[firlandsfarm]

On a new tack it's interesting to see that when a concerned parent asked about available school places of Surrey CC for his child on having to leave public schooling because of the VAT raid the response was NONE for years 9, 10 and 11 for September 2025. I believe the position is similar or worse for January 2025 when the VAT bites. Apparently the CC has a duty to find a nearest school place wherever 'nearest' is, so it could be in a different county! Once the place has been found and offered that's the end of their placement responsibility regardless of the parents accepting it. If it is accepted and is more than 3 miles distant the CC is responsible for paying for transport to and from home/school even if that involves a taxi each time because public transport is not viable.

Good to see Labour have thought that one through and carefully planned its implementation.

[sionascaig]

Good to see Labour have thought that one through and carefully planned its implementation.

Not quite sure what your point is here..

A tiny fraction of "private" school pupils may be put into the same situation as 93% of pupils in England due to a small increase in private school fees & chronic underfunding of schools by the last conservative governments?

"In 2021, figures showed that school fees had grown 20% beyond inflation since 2009. However, student numbers have not diminished as a result. Stuart Adam, a senior economist at the IFS, said most people paying school fees have simply been able to absorb these increases as they are wealthy."

Looks like a non-story too me....

[Archery1969]

Potentially this doesn’t bode well for military personnel who put children into boarding and private schools. The UK armed forces are already struggling to recruit people.

It’s a long read but gives some insights…..

Service personnel who send their children to boarding school say they may be forced to quit the armed forces over rises in fees

Serving officers and soldiers from all ranks have warned they may be forced to quit the military because of the government’s “devastating” VAT raid on private schools.

In letters seen by The Times, service personnel have warned that they can not afford the significant rise in boarding school fees the added VAT would lead to, nor would they allow an “alarming” disruption to their children’s education.

Thousands of military children attend boarding schools across Britain because their parents are consistently told to move around the country or overseas as a result of their job.

Military families have said the government’s plan to introduce a 20 per cent tax on the fees in January will mean an increase in some cases by as much as £15,000 a year, something they described as “unsustainable”.

Although the government has indicated that they could help service personnel with the increase in fees, nothing has been announced so far, leaving them facing an “uncertain” future”, which is creating an “unbearable strain” on military families, they say.

Their individual testimonies, provided to James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, are particularly significant because they mark the first time the troops have been able to share their views publicly, given they are not allowed to talk to the media.

More than 4,000 children of military personnel receive the Continuity of Education Allowance (CEA), a form of taxpayer-funded support to help with private education. It is designed to provide stability for children whose parents often work away or have to move frequently.

However, the support is capped at about £27,000 a year, which for many parents is already not enough. The average annual fee for one child at an independent boarding school is about £41,000.

Figures uncovered by Cartlidge, the MP for South Suffolk, found that the average cost to train a regular army recruit at the Army Training Centre Pirbright was approximately £47,900.

Cartlidge warned of an exodus of military personnel from an already understaffed armed forces if Labour goes ahead with the changes, and said it would cost more to replace the troops than it would save the government.

He said: “Experienced service personnel have told me in no uncertain terms that they could quit the armed forces as a result of this tax. This is the last thing the military needs, given the threats we face and when retention is already an issue. The figures show that it would cost more to train new recruits than to protect these families from the fee increase, so there is no excuse for the government to fail to act — they should exempt children of forces families from school VAT.”

Those claiming CEA must pay the full school bill up front and can then claim back up to 90 per cent — families who go to non-state boarding schools must make a minimum 10 per cent parental contribution to the fees.

A family with two children at a school charging the MoD-capped rate of £27,000 per annum will pay £54,000 a year. They can then claim back £48,600, leaving them to find £5,400. If the 20 per cent VAT is levied they will have to pay a new full bill of £64,800 up front.

If the MoD does not increase CEA to include the VAT cost, and continues to give 90 per cent on the basic fees, parents would have to find £16,200 per annum. If the MoD does increase CEA, the allowance will cover VAT on the basic fees, but the parents’ contribution would still be subject to VAT, so they would have to pay a new total of £6,480.

An RAF flight sergeant whose husband is also in the RAF and has two children at boarding schools said that the wider impact of the policy would be an “irreparable decline in military retention and recruitment as the armed forces package decreases further, along with morale”.

In another letter sent to Cartlidge, the wife of an army officer of more than 25 years said they were “deeply concerned” about the decision to levy VAT on private school fees and the “uncertainty is creating an unbearable strain on military families”.

She said: “The long-term consequences could include a decline in military retention and recruitment, as the armed forces package becomes less attractive. The silence from the government on this issue is deeply concerning, and the impact on our children’s education and futures is alarming.”

She said the family had been forced to relocate every two years. Had their two children not attended a boarding school, they would have had to attend as many as ten different state schools by the time they completed their A-levels.

“The continuity provided by their current school environment, with stable relationships with teachers and peers, is essential to their wellbeing and academic success,” she said. The additional £14,500 a year in costs to send their children to boarding school was “not sustainable”, she said, adding: “My husband is now considering leaving the army as a result.”

She added that the “potential consequence of this policy for our children is devastating”, as one of their children is about to begin his GCSEs. “Far from generating additional revenue to recruit more teachers, this policy will force military families like ours to move our children into state schools, increasing the burden on the state system and causing significant disruption to their education,” she said.

The 13-year-old daughter of a staff sergeant wrote her own letter to say how the fees would affect her, saying that she was due to start boarding school in September, having been to four different schools in just over two years because of military postings.

“I have had to face missing a month of school due to moving in later in the year, and then being put in a school which was oversubscribed and bottom sets as they had no space for me.

“I have big plans for my future, which includes studying law at university and becoming a barrister. I am now longing for some stability, as my dad, who is a soldier, is due a posting right before my GCSEs, which I am keen to excel in,” she said.

In her letter she said that boarding schools provided military children with a “stable and supportive environment through the challenges of frequent relocations and family separation”.

In another letter, a major whose partner also serves in the military said they had moved homes more than 20 times in their careers and served on numerous operational tours. Sending their three children to boarding schools enabled their children to have some stability, they said.

One wife said her husband had completed two tours of Afghanistan, had been away from home for months at time, and her children had “already lost enough due to military life”.

She said: “Under normal circumstances our children would not be attending this type of school, yes we are very fortunate … there has to be some rationality here, we are not all super rich, some of us really do struggle to give a continuity of education.”

Collette Musgrave, chief executive of the Army Families Federation, said those who received the CEA were predominantly from the more experienced ranks such as sergeants, warrant officers, majors and lieutenant colonels, who are “doing key jobs for UK defence, particularly overseas, where there are very limited options for their children’s education”.

She said: “The reasons people leave the military are multifaceted, but many families receiving the Continuity of Education Allowance have told us that this could be the tipping point for them.”

Published by The Times.

[sionascaig]

Published by The Times.

Yup, was surprised when I saw that as current Continuous Education Allowance is between £9k & £10k per term....

That is one massive benefit!

Also a lot of Private schools offer a 20% discount to military personnel.

But...

For say Ampleforth, one of the more expensive private schools, for a full boarder they would be looking at c£2500 extra per term for VAT and as the CEA does not cover full board cost another £5k per term.

==> so their cost will increase roughly by 50% per term... So I suppose it does make sense!!!

[firlandsfarm]

Not quite sure what your point is here..

"A tiny fraction of "private" school pupils" may be put into the same situation as 93% of pupils in England due to a small increase in private school fees & chronic underfunding of schools by the last conservative governments?

"In 2021, figures showed that school fees had grown 20% beyond inflation since 2009. However, student numbers have not diminished as a result. Stuart Adam, a senior economist at the IFS, said most people paying school fees have simply been able to absorb these increases as they are wealthy."

Looks like a non-story too me....

My point is very simple, I'm amazed you can't see it so let me make it even simpler for you.

Labour create a situation that nobody disputes will cause some private school pupils (possibly 35,000) to switch to state school but they haven't checked that the state schools can take the extra pupils. It's as simple as that. They were more concerned with 'ticking another promise off the list' than having a policy where they had spent more than 5 seconds planning it's implementation.

But let's take your comments one at a time ...

"A tiny fraction of "private" school pupils", it doesn't matter what the fraction is, if there is no school for them then there is no school for them. You seem happy that they will not enjoy the same privileges as state school pupils.

"small increase in private school fees" so 20% is small, funny that, you didn't seem to think 11% was small when inflation hit those heights.

"school fees had grown 20% beyond inflation since 2009" something that grows by 20% over 15 years cannot be compared to something that grows by 20% in 1 year unless of course you apply Luvvie maths.

"as they are wealthy" and there it is, the old misinformed and misleading political argument only wealthy parents sent their kids to private school. My wife went to a fee paying catholic school in Bristol. Her parents made many sacrifices in order to afford the fees the school charged, they were not wealthy.

Anyway I could go on but instead why don't you go here and discover what is really going on ... January is only 2 weeks away!

[firlandsfarm]

Yup, was surprised when I saw that as current Continuous Education Allowance is between £9k & £10k per term....

That is one massive benefit!

"benefit"!!! It is not a benefit, it only covers part of the additional cost incurred by forces personnel who are moved around the country and overseas. And what about your 'massive' benefit' of not having your betting profits taxed? Or maybe that doesn't count because it's your benefit!

[sionascaig]

"as they are wealthy" and there it is, the old misinformed and misleading political argument only wealthy parents sent their kids to private school. My wife went to a fee paying catholic school in Bristol. Her parents made many sacrifices in order to afford the fees the school charged, they were not wealthy.

I lived in a cardboard box in the middle o' motorway & my parents still managed to send me to private school...

Some would call that luxury...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0Q ... ontyPython

Screenshot 2024-12-14 152540.png

[greenmark]

"as they are wealthy" and there it is, the old misinformed and misleading political argument only wealthy parents sent their kids to private school. My wife went to a fee paying catholic school in Bristol. Her parents made many sacrifices in order to afford the fees the school charged, they were not wealthy.

I lived in a cardboard box in the middle o' motorway & my parents still managed to send me to private school...

Some would call that luxury...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0Q ... ontyPython

Screenshot 2024-12-14 152540.png

Some people's concept of wealthy is different than others.

[firlandsfarm]

"as they are wealthy" and there it is, the old misinformed and misleading political argument only wealthy parents sent their kids to private school. My wife went to a fee paying catholic school in Bristol. Her parents made many sacrifices in order to afford the fees the school charged, they were not wealthy.

I lived in a cardboard box in the middle o' motorway & my parents still managed to send me to private school...

Some would call that luxury...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0Q ... ontyPython

Screenshot 2024-12-14 152540.png

Well let's leave it there and wait and see shall we ... January will be the first test but some will have paid for the whole scholastic year in advance so not be effected until next September.

[Archery1969]

My final thoughts on this subject is that members of the armed forces should be exempt from income tax.

Why ?

1. They not allowed by law to strike.
2. They not allowed by law to be a member of a union.
3. Their starting salaries are well below a policeman, fireman, doctor.
4. They are effectively on call 24/7.
5. They have to relocate around the UK and overseas with only 28 days notice.
6. They are restricted as to when they can take holiday leave.
7. Compensation for trauma, loss of limb(s) or life is restricted by parliament.
8. When under fire they’re dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t.
9. When being made redundant their financial package is less than other civil servants.

[sionascaig]

My final thoughts on this subject is that members of the armed forces should be exempt from income tax.

Why ?

1. They not allowed by law to strike.
2. They not allowed by law to be a member of a union.
3. Their starting salaries are well below a policeman, fireman, doctor.
4. They are effectively on call 24/7.
5. They have to relocate around the UK and overseas with only 28 days notice.
6. They are restricted as to when they can take holiday leave.
7. Compensation for trauma, loss of limb(s) or life is restricted by parliament.
8. When under fire they’re dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t.
9. When being made redundant their financial package is less than other civil servants.

I'd vote for that...

And don't forget the risk of death in environments where life expectancy can be just a couple of hours to protect others....