Should Private School fee payers get a tax rebate

[Pamplemousecat]

Just following on from another thread. If a child isn’t in the state system should the parents still have to pay the proportion of tax that is taken for education?

@Pamplemousecat really? You do know how low the bar is set to enable private schools to have all the benefits that charitable status confers on them? there's very few people (private schools included) in the sector or otherwise who feel that the status is justified.

Private education is a lifestyle choice. Of course they should pay.

Pamplemousecat really? You do know how low the bar is set to enable private schools to have all the benefits that charitable status confers on them? there's very few people (private schools included) in the sector or otherwise who feel that the status is justified.

Bit of a generalisation. I personally know many people who do think it’s justified just balancing out your view point there! I think the charitable status should be stringently tested and adhered to and schools should absolutely lose it if they don’t comply. However to say there’s very few people in the sector who agree is just a massive pile of horseshit.

Of course they shouldn't. What a ridiculous notion.

You don't pay tax specifically so that your children can go to school. Taxes fund state schools.

Same as you don't pay tax specifically so that you can use the NHS. Taxes fund the NHS and you don't get a discount for being healthy or choosing private healthcare.

The Tory party would go for it though, I'm sure.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/corbyns-raid-private-schools-will-cost-parents-beat-fee-increases/amp/

Looks like the state schools will be fucked too if this happens

Absolutely not.

jesus christ OP - you're brave or drunk - hard hat on. I say this a parent who's kids go to private school.

The whole state system right now relies on some parents paying twice for education - once through income taxes and once through private school fees.

Right now the state has X amount of funding from taxation to spend on Y number of pupils.

If private schools are abolished, as some would advocate, the pool of funding stays at X* but the number of pupils it has to educate goes from Y to Y + 600,000. Which means even less money can be spent per pupil than it is today, OR money has to be moved from other things, like the NHS, just to keep spending per pupil where it is now.

Buying land and building hundreds of new schools is very expensive so let’s assume that the state saves a bit of money by compulsorily purchasing private school buildings below market value and rebadging them as state schools. But what happens then is that house prices rise even higher in what are already expensive places to live close to these schools. Essentially the same kids carry on going to the same school, except for free... while kids in poorer areas carry on going to the same schools as they were before, except there’s less money to spend on them. (Because who’s going to be paying the salaries and pensions of all the former private school teachers, and maintaining all those old buildings?)

The solution usually advocated at this point is “OK - let’s make catchment areas huge and have lotteries for places for every school so it doesn’t matter where you live”. (Champagne socialists who live in multi million pound homes next door to Holland Park Comprehensive or the West London Free School tend to get a bit less keen about abolishing private schools at this point...)

We could do this, but there would be consequences for everyone. Less walking to school and more carbon emissions, because huge numbers of kids from the age of 5 upwards would have to be bussed miles across cities and counties. (Who buys and runs all the buses?) Kids might well end up having no local school friends at all. Parents would effectively lose all choice over where their kids went, even a choice between state schools, as it would entirely be done by lottery.

Personally I think there are better ways to improve substandard state education and address inequality than wasting millions abolishing private schools.

*Contrary to popular belief, tax relief on fees for private schools that do not exist anymore does not raise any money for the Exchequer.

Stix. - also the buildings of private schools are often listed and are very draining from a cost point of view. This is something the state would inherit and it’s a continuous yearly cost as upkeep can be massive . I predict we’d see many old listed buildings being left derelict as the state fail to maintain them properly.

Oh stop it. Yes everyone should pay, no rebate. Look around you at what happens when people start to believe there's no such thing as society, just a collection of individuals. This is what happens when insufficient public funds are cut to the bone. Look at the people sleeping on your high street and in tents in parks and beaches. Look at the crime rate. You want to add to it by taking money out of education? We will pay one way or another. Better we pay in tax.

The whole state system right now relies on some parents paying twice for education - once through income taxes and once through private school fees

No it doesn't, the private system costs the taxpayer about 10% of the total cost of education, through tax subsidies...hardly a reliance.

Don't get the cost argument, we've 7 billion to spend on no-deal brexit, beyond 80billion on HS2, between 100 and 200 billion on Trident... BUT we can't afford to spend a few billion on better schools and more teachers?
Oh and 18 billion to cut taxes for the highest earners and slash corp tax.
Its about priorities as always.

Of the numerous reasons we chose private, making sure the lovely listed buildings and beautiful grounds don’t become derelict really didn’t feature in the decision. It’s really scraping the barrel to suggest saving the state the cost of upkeep or preventing disrepair is an argument for keeping private schools.

What a daft thing to ask.

Would those without kids get a rebate, too? Or those whose kids have grown up? Someone who hasn't visited their GP or been in hospital in the last year? I could go on and on and on and on....
No rebates. It doesn't work like that.

jesus christ OP - you're brave or drunk - hard hat on. I say this a parent who's kids go to private school.

Ha! No hard hat needed here and not drunk either

I meant Trainspotting, that it is something to be considered when anticipating the state take over of private premises in a compulsory purchase situation. I’m saying it might not be as straightforward and such a money spinner as people may think

No, that’s not the way tax works. I’d prefer my tax didn’t go towards the military or giving the Royal Family money but I don’t get the choice there. I’ve never claimed benefits ever but don’t expect a rebate. I’ve never smoked or been seriously ill but i’m Not expecting rebates for that and on and on...

Do you understand the role of taxation? Have you no sense of decency?

Can I get a rebate as I’m essentially an orphan with no need in my immediate family for social care, yet my council tax went up 10% to pay for that!

There isn’t even a meaningful debate to be had here.

Of course you don’t get a rebate. Your taxes fund the education of SOCIETY’S children not merely your own.

You know, the children who will ensure things are maintained and running when you are old.

Selectively opting out of bits of taxation because you don’t take advantage of them works in very, very few cases. Like the TV license.

Not for health. Not for education. Not for defence. Not the roads or the major infrastructure.

Was directed at OP. Maybe we should all have rebates for NHS, fire brigade, police, prisons, pensioners, roads, bridges, schools, the army etc if we dont use those services?

Maybe we should all have rebates for NHS, fire brigade, police, prisons, pensioners, roads, bridges, schools, the army etc if we dont use those services?

Exactly this. I'd be owed a lot of bloody money if that's the case as I don't use hardly any of them but I still don't mind paying for it as I'm sure one day I'll be in need. YABU OP

Pamplemousecat

You posted earlier about why he UK requires private schooling

This is down to our class system why we have a very influential private schooling system if you have a child in private school you will be well aware that the class system is still a force of influence in our society

Could we manage if they were suddenly taken away well I don’t think anyone would put that into practice as it would obviously impact children’s education. Does that mean they have the right to charitable status absolutely not if you have children that go to a private school surely you are aware of the huge amounts of money the schools revive in fees especially sought after schools

As someone who uses the private system I wouldn’t say we should get a rebate. It’s like private healthcare. We choose to spend our money on those things.

However, It does mither me when people get nit picky about an extra £40 voluntary payment to their children’s school or, like the new thread that’s just popped up, paying for lunches.

Yes I understand things can be tight. Yes I understand I am lucky we can pay etc. But I do think a lot of people expect something for nothing. Yes, we do pay towards education but education alone takes up 1/3 of an average persons tax bill.

If you think of everything else that tax bill pays for too (health, infrastructure, local govt, defence) it soon disappears so I just think it’s very wrong to bitch about such small extra contributions to what is actual an incredibly important investment, your child’s education.

It's in the interests of the whole country that all children should receive an education.

Once teachers are paid pension contributions, resources, bursaries and building maintenance is paid most middle private schools don’t have much left