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?

The independent sector educates around 6.5% of the total number of school children in the UK (and over 7% of the total number of school children in England) with the figure rising to more than 15% of pupils over the age of 16.

Don’t be tedious

That’s rich.

It’s your raison d’etre to come on private schools threads and abhor their very existence. Which is ironic wouldn’t you say?

And yes losing that tax would effect the state system

Teachers talk about dire situations with lack of budget

No! Or all childless people should get one too. Chosing Private school is not doing a favour to tax payers!

No on the basis of where do you draw the line? Should people who have private health care get a tax rebate? Should people who don't have children get a rebate? Also, if you can afford private options then you can afford to pay into society. The well off get more than enough breaks as it is.

What we really need in this country when it comes to tax is simplification not yet more complexity.

If you've ever seen the school car park at Milfield, Kelly or Plymouth Colleges you'd realise that even lesser known schools attract v wealthy parents.

I just don't get how struggling families should have pay VAT on a leisure club membership fee so their kids can learn to swim but the richest in society have their school fees VAT exempt....

Is this a serious question?

Well, in any case, is someone who is/has children that are privately educated not befitting from other state educated people? Or do you mean that you would e.g. remove the access to medical doctors educated in the UK for those who get a tax rebate?

Do you also think that anyone not using public transport should have a rebate for that, anyone who uses public medical care less than the average person should have a rebate for that and so on?

On what basis are those who are saying yes, saying yes?

Of course they shouldn't. It's insane.

To say yes presumes that you only pay tax into the education system for the 12 years of your working life during which you have children at school. It presumes that the only possible reason to pay tax into education is for your own children and your own children's schools. This is such an insane, wrongheaded idea that I don't know where to start.

Should people who had no children get a 'rebate' as well? Should people whose children are now adults and no longer using the school system get a 'rebate'? Should people who have been healthy all their lives get a 'rebate' on their NHS contributions? Should those who never use libraries get a 'rebate' on the tax which goes towards those?

Funding education benefits all of us. If you never use the state system for your own children, you haven't 'never used' it. You may, at some point in your life, want an accountant, a lawyer, a librarian, an actuary, an architect, a tutor... 93% of whom will have got to the university where they qualified thanks to progressing through the state school system. You will almost certainly need a plumber, a roofer or a joiner, and they will know how to add up, measure and do basic invoices thanks to doing maths at school - and, these days, they will more than likely have done some kind of post-16 qualification at a state FE college.

To even suggest the idea of a 'rebate' for people with children at private school betrays such a narrow-minded, self-centred view of the world, a fundamental misunderstanding of what the tax system is for, and an excruciating lack of understanding of how it works.

Yes, definitely, it’s so unfair that I’ve had to go without running an eventer at a decent level to budget for school fees, I deserve a rebate. Someone on an average income should get an even lower level of funding for their dc’s state education to save me from such hardship.

Seriously, no, ridiculous suggestion. Tax payer funded resources only work because some pay in for resources they don’t use.

Do we then tax someone on an average income at a much higher rate to recoup the costs of education for any dc they have? Perhaps do the same and charge those with conditions that require greater use of the nhs so healthy people get a rebate? Maybe increase tax for those on benefits so those of us not in receipt don’t have to contribute to a welfare system we don’t personally use?

Not a society I would wish to live in.

DadonIce they might be saying yes to the question in the op which asks the opposite

OK, point taken. My rant still stands, though! (Against the question in the title.)

Oh I know I agree

Listen. It’s clearly not ever going to happen is it. But don’t pretend that using joiners, roofers isn’t paid for in itself!! That’s just silly. You pay for a service at the point of purchase. But really. It was a theoretical question many of you are acting like it’s going to happen. Calm down.

They should pay in full. We all need all our children educated. It’s not about individuals any more than vaccinations are about individuals. Education of all benefits all of society.
There should be VAT on school fees and they should loose charitable status. Private education should not be subsidised by taxpayers.

I’m all for private school but no, I think a refund misses the point.

Not only should they not get tax relief, they should pay VAT on the fees too.

I don't have time to read the whole thread, so sorry if anyone's posted this previously. Read Engines of Privilege: Britain's Private School Problem by Francis Green and David Kynaston.

It's long, it's heavily detailed, it's well and clearly written by people who know their stuff, and even if you don't agree with its conclusions, it's still well worth reading.

Tax is SUPPOSED to be redistributive!

When I'm dictator, everyone will have a social security "account", with an infinite overdraft, which will be credited with a levy from their salary, in place of NI. Every time they cost the state a quantifiable amount of money, their account will be debited. So people who don't burden the state school system may in some case pay less tax, because "school fees" for attending state schools will not be charged to their accounts.

And, bearing in mind that charitable status is. It going to be removed and VAT is not going to be imposed, then private schools should actually do something to deserve their charitable status.Like they are supposed to do. Educating the rich is not a charitable endeavour.

"But don’t pretend that using joiners, roofers isn’t paid for in itself!! That’s just silly."

Go back and read what I wrote again.

An educated workforce benefits all of us - that's my point.

easiest question ever, no, of course not.

I guess removal of charitable status would also mean no loaning out of facilities to local schools. A school nearby gives the local state use of its swimming pool every week ( no charge) and sports field. That sort of thing would stop

YABU - and ridiculous.

I don't use my local library, I've never asked for planning permission for anything, nobody in my family is in a care home or social housing, or ever had cause to bother social workers.

DC left school long ago.

Should I be given a rebate? Of course not.

the private school I attended did, it provided completely free places for those children entitled by the charity (hard to be specific without outing myself, it was a very niche charity). What, of course, that meant is that it was never going to produce amazingly stellar results as other private schools because those children didn't have to pass an exam to attend and so might not actually be especially academic.

Of course, alongside private schools doing their bit to earn their charitable status, it would be good for state church schools to be obliged to remember that they were established to educate the children of the parish, regardless of faith. IMO church schools should be something parents can opt out of, should they wish their DC not to attend a faith school, rather than parents having to meet criteria for their DC to attend.

I agree that better than removing charitable status would be cast iron obligations for privates to meet. The ones near us are, I believe, pretty good at this.