Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think it's a bit cheeky for the wealthy to monopolise places in the top state schools instead of coughing up for private?

264 replies

rainbowtoenails · 21/06/2011 18:12

I've read a lot of the education threads on here and lots of people seem to despair that they can't get into their local state school unless they live within a few feet, where the house prices spike up by several thousands of pounds.
I agree but I'm going to take the arguement one step further by saying that I think its wrong for someone who can easily afford it, to forgo private schools, and take up places at the most oversubscribed state schools, often by using their money to inflate local house prices.
I know that these people have paid their taxes for the state schools but we all pay tax for services we dont use.
If everyone who could afford it went private there would be a lot more spaces in the top state schools for pupils from a wide variety of backgrounds. I firmly beleive that the top state schools should not only serve the rich. This perverse system means that lower income families are paying tax to provide an education they themselves have no access to.

OP posts:
magicmummy1 · 21/06/2011 20:53

YABVU. I pay my taxes, more than most, why the hell shouldn't I send my child to a state school? Yes, I paid a premium to buy a house in the "right" catchment area. The sacrifice I made was to live in a house that is very much smaller than the one in which I lived previously. I know others who have chosen bigger, posher houses in other areas because they were willing to compromise on the schools.

I would not send my dd to a private school because I am perfectly happy with the education on offer in the state system, and I don't believe that private is necessarily better. Why would I want to spend thousands a year on an education that is no better than that on offer at my local state school? I'd far rather pay more tax that could be fed back into the state system for all.

londonartemis · 21/06/2011 20:53

rainbow - get your figures right. Private education is more than 3 grand a term, (in London it is over 4 grand a term.) That is to be paid AFTER tax.
How much tax do you think someone on 40 grand a year pays? How much is left to pay 10-13 grand in school fees (for one child?)

poppygolucky · 21/06/2011 20:56

I am a teacher who has worked in both private and state schools. And based on my experiences, I'd never work in another private school or send my child to one. Each to their own, and I'm not having a go at those who do choose to privately educate, just from what I've seen, kids get a far better holistic education in state schools.

swanker · 21/06/2011 21:02

Ishani 2% levy? You do realise that people on over £37k already pay a20% levy on their tax rate don't you?

Original poster
rainbowtoenails · 21/06/2011 21:03

chrysanthemum- that is exactly the sentimant that inspired this thread

poppy- as I've already said a lot of private schools I know are a lot more diverse than state schools in rich areas

I think I need to clarify an important point that alot of people on this thread dont seem to be aware of. The schools budget comes out of council tax not income tax. There is a flat rate of council tax for all properties which were valued at £320,000+ in 1991. This means that people in multimillion £ homes are paying the exact same amount (not just the same %) as people in much smaller/cheaper properties. The council tax system is skewed in favour of the rich so they are paying much less towards education than everyone else. The on top of this they get access to the best schools. No millionaires send their DCs to sink comps.

OP posts:
Original poster
rainbowtoenails · 21/06/2011 21:09

someone on £40k pays £6.5kpa in tax £3k per term is £9k pa
£40-6.5-18=£15,500, still enough to live on, and that's on only 1 income

OP posts:
londonartemis · 21/06/2011 21:12

rainbow - at what income do you suggest the rich start to send their offspring to private school?
Why the hell should they be forced to go for private school when they have paid through tax for state schools?
Who does that leave at state schools - and isn't there less social mix by what you suggest?

Your gripe should be with the standard of education in the country that means no one wants to send their kids to an inner city sink school - (for want of a better phrase.)

redexpat · 21/06/2011 21:13

This is why some councils use a lottery system to decide who gets school places.

Are you also in favour of means testing child benefit?

londonartemis · 21/06/2011 21:13

And if they have two children?

Ishani · 21/06/2011 21:15

The point is if you don't need schools ie no children you still pay council tax you do pay the levy over £40,000 and it's fairer than creating educational gettos which happening all over the country. It also feels nicer than offering a tax refund to those using private schools which happens elsewhere in the world.

Ishani · 21/06/2011 21:17

So do not pay the levy if yo have no children, distracted by Luther.

Scarletbanner · 21/06/2011 21:18

Rainbow: 80% of schools funding comes from central Govt. Only 20% from local authorities. Less for academies, which are direct funded.

TalkinPeace2 · 21/06/2011 21:20

Rainbow
speaking as somebody who has audited council tax accounts you are talking utter bilge about school funding.
Schools are paid for by the block grant from the Dfee (especially Academies now) that has NOTHING to do with the local Council tax bands.

TalkinPeace2 · 21/06/2011 21:21

PS
LOTS of millionaires send their kids to Comps round our way because the Comps are great.

EvenLessNarkyPuffin · 21/06/2011 21:22

The lottery system deals with postcode inflation.

swanker · 21/06/2011 21:25

rainbow - someone on £40k will pay £6.7k in tax and £3.8k in NI- leaving £29k p.a. to live on (assuming no pension contributions Hmm)

Fee-paying schools vary in cost, but roughly £10k p.a. allowing for lunches (compulsory usually) and uniform. You can also add after-school care to that, as lets face it most people earning £40k will actually need to work full-time.

So you are in fact left with just £9k p.a. for housing costs (!!), food, fuel, bills, car, insurances, council tax etc etc - it isn't actually possible is it?

I am unsure as to why you think council tax funds schools Confused- schools funding in the form of DSG comes directly from central government.

ellodarlin · 21/06/2011 21:26

"someone on £40k pays £6.5kpa in tax"

But they also pay NI and council tax so take home around £29.5 and lose maybe 1.2-2K in council tax bringing it down to 28Kish. School fees are around 12K so for 2dcs they will have 4K a year for everything else. How many familys want to live on 4K a year? They would be better off quitting their jobs so they could get free education.

ellodarlin · 21/06/2011 21:27

x posts

DogsBestFriend · 21/06/2011 21:33

Peace, to be fair the comment was that millionaires don't send their DC to sink estate comps, not to comps in general. I suspect that most of the very rich do send their DC to independents although of course I have no proof of this.

ThisisaSignofthetimes · 21/06/2011 21:37

In answer to a poster above about how much more tax before people move. It's very individual, the three families that I know that did just that were on the 50% rate, add NI into that 11%, they obviously thought they could do better elsewhere. Personally, I'm not quite lucky enough to be on the 50% rate and frankly I will do my hardest to remain below that, I don't see the point in flogging myself to give another 10% to the govt. Those three families no longer pay around 400k in tax combined I would estimate, quite a few funded school places there. When we had punitive tax rates in the 70's, people left, it was called the brain drain. So instead let's not increase taxes but just deny access to those that contribute the most.The effect is still the same.

magicmummy1 · 21/06/2011 21:37

DBF - dd's friend's dad is apparently worth over £10 million. I would call that very rich, but all of his kids are in the state system. "Good" schools but not "outstanding".

I think it's wrong to assume that those who can easily pay for private school will necessarily want to do so. I looked at local private schools, and didn't much like what I saw.

TalkinPeace2 · 21/06/2011 21:38

Dogsbest friend
True, I just object to OP using the phrase "sink comps" as a lot of comps are nothing of the sort.

When I was a kid my dad paid top rate tax of 93% - people forget how low rates are compared with the recent past...

Bramshott · 21/06/2011 21:39

What about 'wealthy' people who believe in the state system and want their children to be educated alongside a broad spectrum of children from a variety of different backgrounds, all living in the local area??

And PLEASE can we knock this idea on the head that all good schools are oversubscribed, and that everyone across the country is having enormous trouble getting their kids into a school which isn't failing? In vast swathes of the country, people are just going about their daily lives, sending their children to their local school, which is doing reasonably well, and not stressing about all of this crap!

magicmummy1 · 21/06/2011 21:41

I'd actually be quite happy to pay more in taxes to fund a better education system, but I'd want my cash to go into the state system, not to a private school outside of it.

And I'd want to be sure that it wasn't going to be spent on creating free schools...

reallytired · 21/06/2011 21:43

If the wealthy did not use the top state school then the results of these schools would collapse. These schools are top because they have the brightest children rather than because they have the best teachers.

I would like all state schools to have a social mix.