Hammer blows to CH finances

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else, but that's still CH related.

Moderator: Moderators

wurzel
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:59 pm
Real Name: Ian
Location: Reading
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Hammer blows to CH finances

Post by wurzel » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:41 pm

I would suspect that is fees become VATable then the fact the school is now split as school and then the foundation "buyng"places for foundationers would mean that non foundationers paid VAT but the charity "the foundation" was able to reclaim VAT on the fees it paid the school for educating it's foundationers.

I know a few years back there was all sorts of problems re VAT on temp fees for banks to do with the fact they felt that VAT should only be due on the margin not on the actual salary part. In a similar vein i suspect CH has enough knowledgeable old blues to ensure the impact is minimised.

User avatar
postwarblue
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 12:12 pm
Real Name: Robert Griffiths
Location: Havant
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Hammer blows to CH finances

Post by postwarblue » Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:37 am

Surely VAT is a progressive tax since rich people spend more money on VATable goods and therefore pay more VAT?

But there's no discussion with those who want people who work hard and make money to be punished for it.
'Oh blest retirement, friend to life's decline'

scrub
UF (Upper Fourth)
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:11 pm
Real Name: Tim
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: Hammer blows to CH finances

Post by scrub » Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:26 pm

I guess you could (potentially) call it progressive if everyone spent the same percentage of their income on VATable things. They don't though and on the rare occasions I've been deemed worthy enough to hobnob with the nobs it's noticeable (in my eyes anyway) that life is much cheaper when you're very rich. Yes, you pay a slightly larger VAT bill because you buy finer foods and drinks etc, but only a small part of your disposable income is spent on those things and the rest is safe. This is before you start to factor in the tax minimisation schemes that earning above a certain amount can access.
More eloquent people than me have written about how expensive it is to be poor, and while flat taxes aren't the cause they certainly don't help when all of your income is spent on taxed goods.

Your second sentence reminds me of the "oh they're just jealous of our success" mantra that I've heard so many times it makes me chuckle before my eyes roll so far back in my head I can read my own thoughts. Probably from having grown up seeing, on one hand, plenty of people who worked hard their whole lives who lived and died with bills they could only just afford to cover, then on the other people who reap huge financial rewards for minimal effort who made their way in life through connections rather than ability. That was literally one of the selling points of a CH education, "it's not what you know it's who you know". I mean sure, in a fair society hard work should equal high rewards and don't get me wrong, I've also met fabulously wealthy people with a ferociously high work rate, but in general there's not much of a correlation between work and rewards.

It's not a question of wanting to see people punished for where they are in life, although some people do want to see that but they are, by and large, utter loons who should be ignored. For me it's summed up by the old (allegedly) Greek proverb "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit". I don't have kids and never will, but I don't begrudge people who do getting a break (tax or otherwise). I won't be making a gynaecologist appointment anytime soon, but I'm happy to pay taxes that contribute to there being a system where others can. I'm a pacifist of sorts but I believe that if you live in a large society a professional defence force will be a necessary part of it. Included in that is a personal belief that if you're willing to have others fight and die for you, you have a moral obligation to care for them properly afterwards.
I guess what this comes down to is if you are in the top tier of society it makes sense to ensure that the society remains healthy because you have far more to lose than the people at the bottom. If that means paying more in tax, then so be it. Over a lifetime you'll still be better off than most others and you'll be able to pass it all on the the next generation.
These users thanked the author scrub for the post (total 2):
Golfer (Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:58 pm) • sejintenej (Sun Oct 14, 2018 2:40 pm)
Rating: 11.76%
ThB 89-91, PeA 93-96

User avatar
J.R.
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15363
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:53 pm
Real Name: John Rutley
Location: Dorking, Surrey
Has thanked: 136 times
Been thanked: 89 times

Re: Hammer blows to CH finances

Post by J.R. » Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:50 pm

VALUE added tax.

Depends on your view of VALUE.

Your turn ladies.
John Rutley. Prep B & Coleridge B. 1958-1963.

sejintenej
Button Grecian
Posts: 3394
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:19 pm
Real Name: David Brown ColA '53-'61
Location: Essex
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Hammer blows to CH finances

Post by sejintenej » Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:23 pm

scrub wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:26 pm
A lot of good sense in scrub's post

life is much cheaper when you're very rich. Yes, you pay a slightly larger VAT bill because you buy finer foods and drinks etc, but only a small part of your disposable income is spent on those things and the rest is safe.
exactly as exemplified by the dustman (rubbish collector) who wrote that the rich and poor buy the same things but the rich get better quality items.
This is before you start to factor in the tax minimisation schemes that earning above a certain amount can access.
S O M E such schemes are open to the poor and even they could buy £20 trainers and put the remaining £80+ into an ISA. For those with a bit more inheritance tax minimalisation is not difficult; there is a lot about legal tax minimalisation on the internet now . OTOH the rich (as scrub mentions below) don't have the time to do the research and pay a fortune to accountants and lawyers for professional advice (and with very few exceptions I rate them with second hand car dealers - I got skinned once even after I corrected him umpteen times)
More eloquent people than me have written about how expensive it is to be poor, and while flat taxes aren't the cause they certainly don't help when all of your income is spent on taxed goods.
There is a question of defining "poor" I see families claiming to be on the breadline but the kids wear £100+ trainers, there is a £1000+ TVs , they all have expensive mobiles using expensive contracts etc etc. By contrast when I was young I wore my mother's cast off blouses up to the age of I think 14, had no shoes ..... and when we got married I had to literally get some timber and make our bed, and we ate off an upturned tea chest.
There is a site which I unashmedly watch showing how you can cut down on costs, even sometimes get free food (but not that put out for the soup kitchens etc)
then on the other people who reap huge financial rewards for minimal effort who made their way in life through connections rather than ability. That was literally one of the selling points of a CH education, "it's not what you know it's who you know". I mean sure, in a fair society hard work should equal high rewards and don't get me wrong, I've also met fabulously wealthy people with a ferociously high work rate, but in general there's not much of a correlation between work and rewards..
Yes, I have come across both types you exemplify BUT they do work hard and those whom I knew died early from the side effects of such work. Think of having to attend four long formal dinners of pretty unmentionable food and then work a very full day within a few hours afterwards. Too many friends have died that way, one was at Eton, another at the local Comp.
I guess what this comes down to is if you are in the top tier of society it makes sense to ensure that the society remains healthy because you have far more to lose than the people at the bottom. If that means paying more in tax, then so be it. Over a lifetime you'll still be better off than most others and you'll be able to pass it all on the the next generation.
IF they can - how many will think themselves ruined when their stocks and shares halve in value? The rest of us are not so involved

I am sure that it all comes down to learning - not only at school but afterwards. I did my UK professional exams over five years whilst I was working, every year did 80 hours of formal training until I retired and I am still learning. It is a product of the high degree of discipline enforced in CH but sadly lacking in most other places.
Every government carries a health warning

sejintenej
Button Grecian
Posts: 3394
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:19 pm
Real Name: David Brown ColA '53-'61
Location: Essex
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Hammer blows to CH finances

Post by sejintenej » Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:27 pm

scrub wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:26 pm
A lot of good sense in scrub's post

life is much cheaper when you're very rich. Yes, you pay a slightly larger VAT bill because you buy finer foods and drinks etc, but only a small part of your disposable income is spent on those things and the rest is safe.
exactly as exemplified by the dustman (rubbish collector) who wrote that the rich and poor buy the same things but the rich get better quality items.
This is before you start to factor in the tax minimisation schemes that earning above a certain amount can access.
S O M E such schemes are open to the poor and even they could buy £20 trainers and put the remaining £80+ into an ISA. For those with a bit more inheritance tax minimalisation is not difficult; there is a lot about legal tax minimalisation on the internet now . OTOH the rich (as scrub mentions below) don't have the time to do the research and pay a fortune to accountants and lawyers for professional advice (and with very few exceptions I rate them with second hand car dealers - I got skinned once even after I corrected him umpteen times)
More eloquent people than me have written about how expensive it is to be poor, and while flat taxes aren't the cause they certainly don't help when all of your income is spent on taxed goods.
There is a question of defining "poor" I see families claiming to be on the breadline but the kids wear £100+ trainers, there is a £1000+ TVs , they all have expensive mobiles using expensive contracts etc etc. By contrast when I was young I wore my mother's cast off blouses up to the age of I think 14, had no shoes ..... and when we got married I had to literally get some timber and make our bed, and we ate off an upturned tea chest.
There is a site which I unashmedly watch showing how you can cut down on costs, even sometimes get free food (but not that put out for the soup kitchens etc)
then on the other people who reap huge financial rewards for minimal effort who made their way in life through connections rather than ability. That was literally one of the selling points of a CH education, "it's not what you know it's who you know". I mean sure, in a fair society hard work should equal high rewards and don't get me wrong, I've also met fabulously wealthy people with a ferociously high work rate, but in general there's not much of a correlation between work and rewards..
Yes, I have come across both types you exemplify BUT they do work hard and those whom I knew died early from the side effects of such work. Think of having to attend four long formal dinners of pretty unmentionable food and then work a very full day within a few hours afterwards. Too many friends have died that way, one was at Eton, another at the local Comp.
I guess what this comes down to is if you are in the top tier of society it makes sense to ensure that the society remains healthy because you have far more to lose than the people at the bottom. If that means paying more in tax, then so be it. Over a lifetime you'll still be better off than most others and you'll be able to pass it all on the the next generation.
IF they can - how many will think themselves ruined when their stocks and shares halve in value? The rest of us are not so involved

I am sure that it all comes down to learning - not only at school but afterwards. I did my UK professional exams over five years whilst I was working, every year did 80 hours of formal training until I retired and I am still learning. It is a product of the high degree of discipline enforced in CH but sadly lacking in most other places.

You don't have to be poor! In the mid 1980s when there were questions about the future of the company I worked for I looked in the library over some months and made a list of about 80 jobs I was able to do with minimal extra outlay (my car was already mine so excluded) each of which should bring in £500 a week. A few could be combined to double income. It can be done - in the end we were taken over and I was out on bum :lol: :lol: :lol:
Every government carries a health warning

scrub
UF (Upper Fourth)
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:11 pm
Real Name: Tim
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: Hammer blows to CH finances

Post by scrub » Sun Oct 14, 2018 5:02 pm

sejintenej wrote:
Sun Oct 14, 2018 3:27 pm
There is a question of defining "poor"
I'll be honest, I have no idea how to do this satisfactorily. My usual gauge is how many pay checks you can miss before you need to hit up Wonga to keep the bailiffs at bay, a warm roof over your head, and food in your belly. <2 - broke, 2-4 - ok as long as you don't get sick, 4-8 - not always easy, but rarely hard, and >8 - life is good.
It's obviously a flippant scale with much about it that can be criticised, but it's been a useful guide for me.
how many will think themselves ruined when their stocks and shares halve in value? The rest of us are not so involved
While I agree with the first part, the second not so much. Companies usually see cost cutting (wages/staff) as the easiest way of giving an ailing share price a quick bump. If your income (or pension) doesn't come from owning part of a company, chances are it comes from working for one, so if the price falls and the P45s come out it's much more likely that the senior management will clear the shop floor before they start pruning higher up. That has knock on effects which in the end have an effect on us all in some small way or another.
I am sure that it all comes down to learning - not only at school but afterwards.
I'm a massive advocate of life-long learning too, seems to be the best way of riding out the inevitable bumps. Even if it doesn't immediately lead to income it keeps you occupied and your mind off other worries, if only for a brief period.

BUT, I would add that luck, front, and persistence also play a massive part. Being the right person for the job is great, but you need to be the right person in the right place at the right time (and be sharp enough to realise this) for that job.
I'm a scientist, a somewhat specialised position to begin with, and working on a project that requires a fairly specific skillset. There's plenty of people who could do my current job, but I was the only one who could do it without extra training and start when they needed when they were looking to hire. Without my skillset I wouldn't have this job, but also if I couldn't start when they needed I wouldn't have this job.
ThB 89-91, PeA 93-96

coliemore
2nd Former
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 12:35 am
Real Name: David Taplin
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Hammer blows to CH finances

Post by coliemore » Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:46 pm

Letter to Sir John Daniel

Dear John

Thank you for your ongoing engagement. Your highly committed input is appreciated.

This project concerns the debate within the Christ's Hospital community about the appropriate level of Full-Fee-Paying (FFP) Blues in the context of the "Sui Generis" ethos and the charitable mission of Christ's Hospital in the 21stC. This is acknowledged as an important debate by the new Council and the new Headmaster - as evidenced for example by the current Business Plan's aims to steadily reduce the FFP from the recent high zenith of 26% - in concert with a revitalized fund-raising and new collaborative initiatives. This is coupled to a much enhanced engagement of CH management with Old Blues under the leadership of Hugo Middlemas; plus a restructured CHOBA.

One way or another there have virtually always been some FFP Blues even from the 16thC including via special arrangements for children of staff members. Accordingly I have not come across any Old Blue believing that the FFP% should be 0%. Nor have I come across any Old Blue who believes that the FFP% should be 100%, nor even 50%. Universally, however, there seems to be a general view that an FFP of 26% is certainly too high.

This debate, which was initiated in 2015 by the BCOB-led "Petition 1552" in the old era of John Franklin & Guy Perricone and the difficulties arising from the 2008 financial crisis, is now being re-visited in the new era of Simon Reid & Christopher Steane via especially the new involvement of Lizzie Ballagher and Desi Omojokun.

This debate is very positive, engaged and forward-looking - in empathy and beneficial engagement with the top CH management including Hugo Middlemas. This debate distills to asking questions in authentic, reasonable, poetic, philosophical and pragmatic terms about the ideal level of FFP between say 1% and 25% - and other related questions.

All views are very welcome and Lizzie and Desi are already making excellent new contributions to asking these various questions in an accessible and warmly sympathetic manner - with a more gender-balanced, younger and culturally diverse approach.

Fundamentally what does the "Sui Generis" phrase mean in this new multicultural, global, artificial intelligence world of this 21stC?

(1) Should there be a cap (of say 10%) on FFP Blues? Many Old Blues think Yes there should be some sort of cap - otherwise CH becomes simply "Charterhouse in Fancy Dress" - or "Eton in Yellow Stockings" - at significant variance with the ancient deed of pity of the Boy King in 1552.

(2) Has CH progressed in regard to gender-balance, diversity, refugees and multi-culturalism in the 21stC? The answer is a very welcome Yes - but what further developments are appropriate?

(3) Has CH become too academically elitist in admissions - catering mainly for high-achieving, highly gifted children rather than primarily the needy and disadvantaged - and also being too hard on the slower developing Blues and demanding an untowardly high performance to be allowed to stay on into the all-important Grecian years? The answer is Possibly.

The goal of this project is to ask questions and arrive at a new position over the next twelve months.

Lizzie has already made significant progress in regard to 1552 Poetry. She aims to create an illustrated poetry oeuvre by St Matthew's Day 2019.

Desi will be especially reaching out to younger, new Old Blues of all hues. She is also re-addressing the whole story of Old Blues in North America since the 17thC and especially the BCOB Story. Goodness there may even be North American Old Blues who are members of the USA Republican Party and vote for Donald Trump.

Above all within BCOB and within this project all views are welcome absolutely - including to be sure from new FFP Old Blues and Blues themselves.

If you are conveniently in Kent/London I believe that Lizzie would be happy to meet you.

Certainly Desi would be happy to meet you in Vancouver.

We look forward to your ongoing engagement - all of us with immense affection and abiding appreciations of Christ's Hospital enduringly.

Yours fraternally
David

Avon
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:39 pm
Real Name: Ed Bell
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: Hammer blows to CH finances

Post by Avon » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:06 am

Phew. Poetry to the rescue again.

Golfer
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 176
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 5:13 pm
Real Name: Tim Askew
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Hammer blows to CH finances

Post by Golfer » Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:44 pm

postwarblue wrote:
Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:37 am
Surely VAT is a progressive tax since rich people spend more money on VATable goods and therefore pay more VAT?
No. Miles off target. Thatcher vastly increased VAT from 8% to 15% because she knew it would NOT be "progressive". If you save money - increasing your [family's] wealth and the country's inequality - you do not get penalised by VAT.

Post Reply