Cut the dole to cut higher tax rates

[Purple]

Honestly, you guys should talk more. You can't both be right, right?

You are a master of obfuscation.
The State funds a higher pupil teacher ratio in private schools than it does in public schools.
In order to bring that level down to the same as it is in public schools those private schools fund the cost of those extra teachers from the fees they receive.
If the State was running those schools they would have to fund those extra teachers from general taxation.
The state would also have to fund the upkeep of the schools and all other costs relating to the running of the schools which are now funded by the State.
Remember that our education system is a voluntary opt-in system for schools so every private school can choose to stop being private and hand over the running, and funding, of the school to the State.
Most schools which are private remained out of the system so that they could maintain an individual ethos. That's why they are usually run by a religious order or are a non-Catholic denomination.
Personally I'm not a big fan of them but as long as the Catholic Church, and by extension the head of State of a foreign country, has the ultimate say in so many aspects of how our schools are run I'm glad parents have the choice.

 

[Firefly]

The State funds a higher pupil teacher ratio in private schools than it does in public schools. In order to bring that level down to the same as it is in public schools those private schools fund the cost of those extra teachers from the fees they receive.

This also correlates to what Orka said. I thought the state paid for all teachers in private schools but it appears that they only pay for most of them. This shortfall coupled with the upkeep of the school iteself represents a subsidy from the parents who send their children to private schools to the state.

 

[TheBigShort]

You are a master of obfuscation.

In fairness, there are different trains of thought being posted here, out of which confusion can arise.

If the State was running those schools they would have to fund those extra teachers from general taxation.

We are talking about a tiny number of teachers in the scheme of things?

The state would also have to fund the upkeep of the schools and all other costs relating to the running of the schools which are now funded by the State.

If the State decided to take on the maintenance of those schools, yes. Alternatively, it may be possible for existing State schools to absorb the numbers pupils concerned from private schools at zero cost.

That's why they are usually run by a religious order or are a non-Catholic denomination.

And probably in receipt of church funding? Subsidised by church going faithful who dont send their children to private schools?

I thought the state paid for all teachers in private schools but it appears that they only pay for most of them.

See, even Firefly was confused.

This shortfall coupled with the upkeep of the school iteself represents a subsidy from the parents who send their children to private schools to the state.

Like I said, next month I will buy a bottle of water from a private company to subsidise the public water system. This is my way of acknowledging the solidarity shown by the private fee-paying parents of the State funded education system.
I reckon its worth between €0.28 to €0.89c a week for taxpayers.

 

[Firefly]

See, even Firefly was confused.

I wasn't confused, I was incorrect and I'm happy to admit that. I thought the state paid for all teachers in a private school, but the private school pays for additional teachers to bring the school in line with the pupil / teacher ratios in the public school.

Like I said, next month I will buy a bottle of water from a private company to subsidise the public water system. This is my way of acknowledging the solidarity shown by the private fee-paying parents of the State funded education system.
I reckon its worth between €0.28 to €0.89c a week for taxpayers.

Every little helps!

 

[Purple]

Alternatively, it may be possible for existing State schools to absorb the numbers pupils concerned from private schools at zero cost.

So there's a good possibility that the state education is currently over funded. Is that what you are saying?

And probably in receipt of church funding? Subsidised by church going faithful who dont send their children to private schools?

Possibly.

Like I said, next month I will buy a bottle of water from a private company to subsidise the public water system. This is my way of acknowledging the solidarity shown by the private fee-paying parents of the State funded education system.
I reckon its worth between €0.28 to €0.89c a week for taxpayers.[/QUOTE] Good man, now you are starting to think the right way! When you get that subsidy up to €3000 to €4000 a year you'll be subsidising the State coffers as much as the parents who send their kids to private schools while already paying for a place in a public school through their taxes. That's the bit you are missing; they are funding two places and only using one.

 

[TheBigShort]

So there's a good possibility that the state education is currently over funded. Is that what you are saying?

Possibly.

Like I said, next month I will buy a bottle of water from a private company to subsidise the public water system. This is my way of acknowledging the solidarity shown by the private fee-paying parents of the State funded education system.
I reckon its worth between €0.28 to €0.89c a week for taxpayers.

Good man, now you are starting to think the right way! When you get that subsidy up to €3000 to €4000 a year you'll be subsidising the State coffers as much as the parents who send their kids to private schools while already paying for a place in a public school through their taxes. That's the bit you are missing; they are funding two places and only using one.[/QUOTE]


Not sure how €0.89c per taxpayer a week is ever going to reach €4,000. Especially when you consider how those same fee-paying parents are being subsidised in other ways by everyone else in so many other ways. For instance, fee-paying Dublin bus passengers. I mean, if they didn't pay their fares the State subvention would have to dramatically increase. Or is it case that you believe only private entities (such as schools) are subsiding the taxpayer, but public entities (Dublin Bus) are subsidised by the taxpayer?

 

[TheBigShort]

I wasn't confused, I was incorrect and I'm happy to admit that. I thought the state paid for all teachers in a private school, but the private school pays for additional teachers to bring the school in line with the pupil / teacher ratios in the public school.

Fair enough, but I was accused of obfuscating. I think it is fair to say that differing views in support of the same principle may cause some confusion.

Every little helps!

Yes, we have gone from "Cut the Dole!,Cut higher taxes!", down to the cost of a bottle of water.

 

[Leo]

Why ?

You put effective and policing in the a sentence without a negative.

 

[TheBigShort]

So there's a good possibility that the state education is currently over funded. Is that what you are saying?

No.

 

[Firefly]

The Dept of Education estimates it to be €22m. Or about €15 a year per taxpayer. I was a bit off, so thanks very much to all the parents of fee paying schools for the €0.28c a wek subsidy.
In a months time im going to put that money together and buy a bottle of water from the shop, reducing the demand on the public water system as a way of showing my gratitude.

I see what you are doing - making out like the €22m is inconsequential when divided by the number of taxpayers. Here's a better way to look at it....there are an estimated 24,1112 students in private education * . Dividing that number into €22m
means that the subsidy works out at €913 euro per child per year.

* http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...to-enjoy-the-fruits-of-recovery-34329942.html

 

[TheBigShort]

making out like the €22m is inconsequential when divided by the number of taxpayers.

Well that is the comparison is it not? Parents of fee-paying schools subsidise the State?

Dividing that number into €22m
means that the subsidy works out at €913 euro per child per year.

You could look at that way alright, like you could look at Dublin Bus passengers subsidise the State by paying fares. But then ive never heard that comparison before. Ive routinely heard that taxpayers subsidise public transport passengers. This is wrong apparently, public transport should be privatised right? Like private education? That way it could be claimed that any private entity in receipt of State subvention (like private schools) is the individual paying twice and subsidising the State, but any public entity (like Dublin Bus) is passengers being subsidised by taxpayers and should be privatised, right?

 

[Firefly]

You could look at that way alright, like you could look at Dublin Bus passengers subsidise the State by paying fares. But then ive never heard that comparison before. Ive routinely heard that taxpayers subsidise public transport passengers. This is wrong apparently, public transport should be privatised right? Like private education? That way it could be claimed that any private entity in receipt of State subvention (like private schools) is the individual paying twice and subsidising the State, but any public entity (like Dublin Bus) is passengers being subsidised by taxpayers and should be privatised, right?

Not being smart, but I can't make out your points in italics above, would you mind re-phrasing?

Thanks.

 

[TheBigShort]

Not being smart, but I can't make out your points in italics above, would you mind re-phrasing?

Thanks.

No problem, admittedly badly written.

The point was that a private entity (school) receives subsidy in the form of teacher salaries but the arguement is made that by virtue of private fees paid by parents the State is being subsidised.
I have never heard that arguement made for a Dublin Bus passenger. That they are effectively subsiding the State twice through taxes and paying fares. Have you?
In fact I have heard the opposite. That because Dublin Bus receives a subsidy that it would be better if the sector was opened to private competition as the subsidy is a burden on the taxpayer (albeit heavily subsidised by fee-paying passengers).

 

[Purple]

No problem, admittedly badly written.

The point was that a private entity (school) receives subsidy in the form of teacher salaries but the arguement is made that by virtue of private fees paid by parents the State is being subsidised.
I have never heard that arguement made for a Dublin Bus passenger. That they are effectively subsiding the State twice through taxes and paying fares. Have you?
In fact I have heard the opposite. That because Dublin Bus receives a subsidy that it would be better if the sector was opened to private competition as the subsidy is a burden on the taxpayer (albeit heavily subsidised by fee-paying passengers).

A Dublin Bus passenger is using the public transport infrastructure paid for by the tax payer.
If they were using a private bus which brought them on the same journey for a higher fee which received a lower subvention by the state, while also paying for a ticket with Dublin Bus, then they would be subsidising the public transport system.

 

[TheBigShort]

If they were using a private bus which brought them on the same journey for a higher fee which received a lower subvention by the state, while also paying for a ticket with Dublin Bus,

Which like happens...never, perhaps once, inadvertently, by someone who is on drugs, or where the private market concept of providing cheaper services and better efficiencies has collapsed, by people on drugs.

 

[Purple]

Which like happens...never, perhaps once, inadvertently, by someone who is on drugs, or where the private market concept of providing cheaper services and better efficiencies has collapsed, by people on drugs.

I don't understand that but I still like it

 

[Firefly]

No problem, admittedly badly written.

The point was that a private entity (school) receives subsidy in the form of teacher salaries but the arguement is made that by virtue of private fees paid by parents the State is being subsidised.
I have never heard that arguement made for a Dublin Bus passenger. That they are effectively subsiding the State twice through taxes and paying fares. Have you?
In fact I have heard the opposite. That because Dublin Bus receives a subsidy that it would be better if the sector was opened to private competition as the subsidy is a burden on the taxpayer (albeit heavily subsidised by fee-paying passengers).

Thanks for that.

I see your point. Re: private education, I've called it a subsidy to the state as the costs are lower. Although the costs to the State are lower, I accept it's not a "subsidy" per se - I don't think there are too many parents sending their kids to private schools with the intention of subsidising the state. It's just happens to be cheaper for the state.

Dublin Bus clearly receives a subsidy via the subvention. Any losses are absorbed by the state.

Last year Dublin Bus received almost 100m from the state http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...almost-100m-to-dublin-bus-last-year-1.2786090 That's just Dublin Bus, never mind Irish Rail and the Bus Eireann.

I really think the buses should be open to competition. I've heard the argument that the private operators would cherry pick the routes, but if routes were tendered in batches (e.g. 2 profitable routes and 1 loss making route) with clear SLAs on delivery then it could work.

 

[TheBigShort]

Thanks for that.

I see your point. Re: private education, I've called it a subsidy to the state as the costs are lower. Although the costs to the State are lower, I accept it's not a "subsidy" per se - I don't think there are too many parents sending their kids to private schools with the intention of subsidising the state. It's just happens to be cheaper for the state.

Dublin Bus clearly receives a subsidy via the subvention. Any losses are absorbed by the state.

Last year Dublin Bus received almost 100m from the state http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...almost-100m-to-dublin-bus-last-year-1.2786090 That's just Dublin Bus, never mind Irish Rail and the Bus Eireann.

I really think the buses should be open to competition. I've heard the argument that the private operators would cherry pick the routes, but if routes were tendered in batches (e.g. 2 profitable routes and 1 loss making route) with clear SLAs on delivery then it could work.

Dublin Bus also carried 122m passengers last year. A subsidy of €0.82c per passenger ride.
I have no issue with opening up private competition other than assurances for socially necessary but economically unviable routes. I would be sceptical in the long run that any private carrier would not persist in dumping these routes eventually.

 

[MrEarl]

Dublin Bus also carried 122m passengers last year. A subsidy of €0.82c per passenger ride.
I have no issue with opening up private competition other than assurances for socially necessary but economically unviable routes. I would be sceptical in the long run that any private carrier would not persist in dumping these routes eventually.

Hello,

In my view, the first step that needs to be taken with regards to Dublin Bus, is to remove some of the routes that badly overlap or "mirror" the Luas and Dart lines... the rail lines can take more traffic (with justification for buying more carraiges if necessary from the savings made at Dublin Bus), while it's complete madness having a bus route from numerous locations, such as: Greystones, Howth or Malahide into the city centre with the Dart able to get people there quicker and probably more efficiently and environmentally friendly.

Thereafter, I would look at privatising certain routes, but subject to strict conditons on the provision of the service over a minimum pre-determined schedule with risk of losing the route (without compensation) if they default on this agreement.

 

[Firefly]

I have no issue with opening up private competition other than assurances for socially necessary but economically unviable routes. I would be sceptical in the long run that any private carrier would not persist in dumping these routes eventually.

I would agree with that - the market will not always provide a service that is deemed necessary from a society perspective. Either the state provides that service or the SLAs to the private company providing that service at water-tight. Another safe-guard would be to have short contracts - a few years in length. That way any mistakes would not last forever and if there are changing requirements (such as new routes) these can be implemented in a shorter time frame.

Possibly an example of where this works quite well is the school bus system where private operators up & down the country provide a service that the state does not.