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?

Average wage/mortgage will not allow parents to send children to private school

To be able to do so you are in a privileged position and it buys privileged- if you go without a few things in life that is a choice but your privilege allows you to be able to do that

It’s astounding the moans I hear about how school fees are crippling people’s finances - don’t do it then. And shockingly shows lack of awareness when people claim they save the pennies and scrimp and save - what 10/20k a year

A child being privately educated is a privilege, not necessarily better but a privilege and they should be made aware of that yet so many parents will plead this false hardship it is sickening

PissedOffProf

DD’s were less than £6k a year.

People aren't paying tax just to educate their own children - they're paying tax so that everyone's children can be educated. So the hairdresser can read the chemical hazard warnings on the dye; so the waiter can make change from their apron; so the girl from the sink estate can be recognised as a talented engineer of the future; so anyone and everyone can access teachings on philosophy and economics that will make it clear what a narrow minded and stupid question this is.

Seriously OP, try Quora - your question will fit right in with the 'don't you wish you could have private healthcare instead of the NHS' brigade

JacquesHammer - well, if it was so little, surely a bit of VAT on top would not hurt.

I don’t know pissed. A couple on joint £50k in an area where fees and housing are cheaper, especially if they bought their house before prices were ludicrous could easily afford one or even two lots of fees with a decent age gap by sacrificing some luxuries their friends, neighbours and colleagues have on a similar income.

But even in that scenario I still agree it’s a privilege to have the choice and not a sacrifice deserving of what would essentially be tax payer funded recompense.

well, if it was so little, surely a bit of VAT on top would not hurt

Not sure why you’re directing that at me since I haven’t commented on that point on this thread....but to answer your question no, we would have happily paid VAT.

These threads always come a cropper because people refer to Private School as a single entity and don’t consider the very many different permutations of schools within that bracket.

TrainspottingWelsh, there are too many "ifs" in your argument. This squarely points to the fact that private schools are not for middle earners.

Why would someone save and scrimp to send their child to a middling day school when they could send them.to a good state school?

Why would someone save and scrimp to send their child to a middling day school when they could send them.to a good state school

Surely “middling day schools” range in quality.

When councils are ensuring one gets into one’s catchment school, then I imagine the lower level day schools will stop having a purpose.

JacquesHammer, I am actually rather astonished that a private school can be charging less than £6,000 a year. That is waaay less than a full-time nursery fee. It's also less than the average funding received per pupil in secondary schools. I would be seriously concerned about the quality of teaching and the welfare of both students and staff in such an institution.

Pp re robust replies: I am only too happy to read robust replies and see what others think. When I said “ calm down” I refer to the hysterics in some of the responses eg referring to having to lie down, blood pressure needing to be lowered, people raging almost imagining posters foaming at the mouth. It’s NOT been made in to a law and it is highly unlikely to. So this is just a random thread on an internet site. It’s not the House of Commons! ( maybe if it were John B could call “order”!

I would be seriously concerned about the quality of teaching and the welfare of both students and staff in such an institution

Don’t be. It’s a tiny school in a bequeathed building.

DD did 9 years there. Staff retention is way above average because they’re treated well. They take well above the average of SEN children for private schools and get great results.

It’s just a great little school with a good ethos and constantly receives outstanding reviews from inspectors.

Well my dad died before he was eligible for pension. It didn't stop the government taking a massive chunk of his hard earned money. Even though he saved thousands by not claiming state pension bus passes etc.

Generally I don’t disagree pissed. But a quick google tells me that Manchester grammar charges £13k, and anyone that bought a normal family home 20yrs ago could easily have a very low mortgage going from the average house price then.

And I only picked Manchester grammar because it’s the first big Northern name I could think of. I imagine there are plenty more, including those less prestigious, or in other areas where fees would be a smaller % of income.

Although there’s very much something to be said for the fact anyone with a spare 5 figure sum after basic living expenses is certainly wealthier than average in the current climate.

No. Because you benefit from state education whether or not you have childen in state education or recieved your own state education. The benefit I get is all the educated people doing jobs that they couldnt otherwise do without an education. Whether its the tax they go on to pay from or even more directly as they do a socially useful role like paramedic. An educated workforce is a necessity for my wellbeing and I'm happy to contribute to the foundations of that education.

I haven't read the full thread, but just wanted to say that those who have private health insurance still use the NHS as they need to see a GP to be referred for private treatment (unless they use a private GP). Also 999/A&E services you can't generally get privately. Also, there's generally exclusions on a PMI policy the you might need to have treated on the NHS

Put your bullet proof jacket on...
Yes I think they should get a tax rebate. Although they would have to stay in the private system and not chop and change between private and non schools if that makes sense- would make it complicated!

no of course not.

I don't have any old people using resources. I barely use the NHS. I don't use any support services for mental health issues. I'm not unemployed. I don't smoke and I'm not obese, so I'm not a drain on NHS resources. I'm not disabled. I should get loads of discounts.

Where would it end? That's not the way society works. We pay taxes to benefit society as a whole. We pay taxes to help the most vulnerable in society. We pay taxes because we all benefit from an educated, healthy, looked after society. What a ridiculous question.

But that's exactly the situation where we lived pre-DC. It would have been far cheaper to send our hypothetical kids to the private school (for the same price as ft nursery) than to live in certain postcodes. Demand between state schools was far more polarising.

As it was asked, the private school families we know through the community and work are plumbers, shopkeepers, middle managers and doctors. My thoughts are that if we make it harder to afford private school, those middle families won't be able to stretch to the extra cost and will put even more pressure on those areas. As proven by the equivalent parents already in state schools.

Yes I think they should get a tax rebate.

But surely it should come with a written undertaking never to benefit from the state education of other people's children, dutifully paid for by the taxpayers.

Don't get into that ambulance until you've checked the paramedic's background, don't let the doctor treat you, check out your child's teachers in case they were educated by the state, don't go to the pharmacy, don't eat, don't shop.

Yes definitely.

Yes.
Quite a lot of people send their children to private school because the state education systems just isn’t up to scratch both nationally and locally. In essence a lot of parents are forced to opt for private school. The government clearly isn’t spending the education part of taxes adequately and delivering good education. Parents should take this money and invest it in better education.

No I don't think parent who pay for private education for their children should get a tax rebate, for all the reasons other posters have mentioned. Our DD went to a private school. We pay tax for the benefit of the community as a whole, not just for what we do or could receive in return.

Removing charitable status for those private schools which hold it, would have a large knock on effect for parents and could in effect increase the numbers of children applying for state school places. In some parts of the country (eg Surrey, Berkshire) that would put some serious pressure in an already over-subscribed system. It's not something that could be done overnight and without additional funding into schools up-front.

The old, well established schools would continue (eg the Etons, Roedeans ) as they have an international market selling a well thought of 'British' education. The less well known, relatively cheaper schools without the international students would be the ones hit hardest. So we would still have the super rich able to access private education, whereas the 'financially comfortable' would be priced out of the market. Would still be getting Eton educated PMs - for all the good they do us.......

No, of course not.

On principle, it is offensive to step away from sharing the cost.

But also, in practice, it would be awful. If they got a rebate, then people who don't have children should definitely be due a rebate. But then you may as well not have any rebates at all and simply charge extra tax from people with children at school. Either way, it becomes a system where you charge at the point of use, according to income.

Of course, what would then happen is that many more middle class people would privately educate, as the net cost would be a lot less. We would end up with a much more divided system - lots more private schools, much 'grittier' state schools with a much poorer demographic. It would be awful.

You chose to go private. Others choose to use BUPA. I choose to buy books rather than use a library. Bit of a silly question to be honest. How do you think the NHS or the state school system would work if a proportion of people got refunds for not using them or not using them often. How ridiculous.