To be annoyed that private schools have charity funding.

[Olympiathequeen]

They are not charities, they are businesses.

They do little or nothing for the local community.

They benefit by about £750 mil. They part fund bursaries for around half that amount.

Leaving them with a tidy little £300+ million profit at the expense of the taxpayers.

That money is desperately needed for public schools.

WTAF is the government doing?

Yes I want the tax break to go. That is because it is greatly unfair. That is not whinging.

Why is unfair Bratsy? In light of what I have said about how much we each contribute to the pot and how much we take back from the pot. Do explain your reasoning?

Because that reasoning is faulty. There are state provided services, we all decide if we use them or not. Just because we choose to use private ones, does not mean we should get a tax break.
If I join a private gym instead of using the council leisure centre, should I get a tax break?
If I pay for private medical care, instead of the NHS, should I get a tax break?
If my kids go to a private pre school instead of the one in the local state school, should I get a tax break?

The reality is there are lots and lots of services where people have the choice to go private, or use state services. Only in education are the vast majority of the private choices given tax breaks.

Because that reasoning is faulty

No, it isn't. You have fundamentally misunderstood the 'tax break' it seems.

DancingDinosaur doesn't get a 'tax break' taken directly off her tax. She doesn't get a rebate. There is a notional amount of approx £200/student/term which the school benefits from by not having to pay tax. This might directly benefit DancingDinosaur in lower fees but more likely the benefit is indirect through more being able to be reinvested in th school facilities, teachers etc as the fee level is pretty much set to market supply/demand.

By privately educating her child she is saving the country a net amount of over £5,000 per year. On top of that, she hasn't done selection by house price and deprived someone else of a place by inflating property prices near a good state school.

Net impact a year 4900 not over 5

People with school age children who privately educate are likely to be some of the very few parents who are net contributors.

By only have two dcs instead of the four I'd have liked I must be saving the country £10,000. And I don't smoke so I'll save them nhs some money too. But I am a bit fat so maybe I should pay some extra for that.

It just doesn't work this way.

I find it curious among the private school parents I know, that there is a need to endlessly gush about the wonders of our local private school, while in the next sentence they disparage the local elementary school (which my children attend), all delivered in easy, breezy fashion, that nobody could possibly think they were being offensive.

Private schools do not perform a charitable function. Therefore they should not pay tax as if they are. It's nothing to do with what parents do or don't pay.

stopgap you clearly know some horrible people. That isn't a given for parents who educate privately.

Our local States are wonderful. I applied for the three closest (and literally I am 3 minutes away from one) and got none of them. I would never disparage schools because they were state.

I would however criticise a school on its own merit whether private or state

Actually plenty of people who never have children and thus use few state services, are net contributors.

Charities and their tax breaks should be about helping the needy.

Perhaps the tax break for the national trust should go. After all, you have to pay to get in!

The schools are not commercial concerns though. They are not businesses in any normal way. They provide an education and so save the state some money.

I can't get so aerated about this. Like I say I see private schooling as a positive in my community as it provides some choice. There is a "good enough" state alternative. It could be improved but not by getting rid of the private sector!

Actually plenty of people who never have children and thus use few state services, are net contributors

Yes but people who haven never had children are not parents.... And my post specifically said parents.

I disagree. No entity can just "get" charitable status. They have to demonstrate they they will be of benefit to a specific thing or group, and that this thing or group is worthy of receiving the benefit. Surely a child's education is a worthy cause, else why the hell should we pay for state education in our taxes?

Choice that only a few can take up.

The National Trust spends money on the upkeep of many thousands of miles of free parks and coast land. You have to pay to get into the stately homes and formal gardens, but they have lots and lots of free places. We regularly go walking for free in land maintained by the National Trust.

By only have two dcs instead of the four I'd have liked I must be saving the country £10,000. And I don't smoke so I'll save them nhs some money too. But I am a bit fat so maybe I should pay some extra for that.
It just doesn't work this way.

Do you actually understand what is being talked about? People who privately educate do not get a fucking tax rebate.

Private schools do perform a charitable function. English law provides that education is one of the charitable purposes and this has been so for centuries. I am prepared to listen to people who understand what the consequences of altering that would be on this issue. It is all too clear that none of the anti private school faction here does understand those consequences and their opinions are easily discounted.

Perhaps the tax break for the national trust should go. After all, you have to pay to get in

Oh, is visiting stately homes compulsory? I had no idea.

(The charitable purpose of the NT is about protecting and preserving places significant to heritage, rather than the provision of visitor attractions. Which is a reasonable 'public good'. I'm not convinced that education mainly the children of rich people is in quite the same category....)

Private schools being charities made sense before state education. Then there were also schools that were run for the poor, by charities. Educating rich peoples kids should not be a charitable function.

Surely a child's education is a worthy cause, else why the hell should we pay for state education in our taxes?

Yes. Educating children is a worthy goal, which is why we have universal provision.

Giving tax breaks to those who have decided to opt out of that universal provision, despite the public disbenefits of private education, does not really meet the test, does it? It isn't like he children wouldn't have access to an education without independent provision.

Our family meets the criteria for deprived. Our ds goes to a highly regarded ptivat school because he gets a 100% bursary plus a travel allowance to cover the costs of his transport to school. Around 20% of the children in his school are in receipt of a bursary and quite a few of those are 100% or very substantial bursaries. Those children have worked heard to earn their place in the school as the entrance process is very competitive and many children whose parents can afford full fees don't get a place. I think what the school is doing does meet enough charitable aims to deserve its charitable status. It is quite a big school so 20% on bursaries equals around 400 children. In addition to bursaries the school also runs classes in local state schools, shares its facilities and does a significant amount of community work including work with pupils at special needs schools.
What else do they need to do to deserve their charitable status?
£600 tax break per pupil per year enables them to offer more bursaries / keep fees lower (they are low in comparison to the national average despite it being a highly regarded school) which enables a wider variety of pupils to attend.

Which consequences would those be, Kallia? Those that could be solved through effective and targeted regulatory change?

I'm sorry, I don't buy 'we've done it this way for centuries' as a sensible, logical or defensible reason for keeping a particular way of doing anything.

The parents' choice to spend their money on buying an alternative education for their child means others benefit from the places at our oversubscribed local school.