Private Schools being able to hold charitable status

[IdiotCreatures]

I went and looked at a building associated with a local independent school yesterday, as it's always piqued my curiosity.
The school is run by the Woodard Corporation. I looked at their books on company house yesterday.
The amount of money moving through them is ridiculous. If people want to pay for a private education, then surely the institutions should be taxed.
Apart from a small number of scholarships, the average person is not benefiting from these institutions.
In the case of Eton, as pointed out on another thread, these schools are probably leading to damage to society and definitely do not promote the idea of equality.

But the "most" privileged will have parents able to pay more, so they'll still go to the private schools. The people who it WILL hit hardest are the lower income parents who are already struggling to get a decent education for their children, who'll now no longer be able to afford it and will get thrown back into, often, unsuitable state schools, at a cost to the taxpayer.

Then school will have to help them out no doubt there shall be support for these families

but let’s not pretend these are the majority most will absolutely find the money and the school will take on some of the extra costs

it’s astounding that so many play down how privileged they are and their children are to be able to have this opportunity

It depends on the provision required.

I have cared for children who cannot be accommodated in mainstream schools. They've tried, but their needs are too complex.
The state has contributed to their education at private provision. Fundraising and charitable status helps to keep their fees for the local authority lower. Most also offer some sort of specialist training for other education professionals.

Ironically, even though this policy is intended to target the likes of Eton College, it will be those schools that can easily prove their charitable work and will not be affected by losing it anyway. They most certainly won't be closing!
Much more likely they'd become an even more elite school, taking on only those who can afford their education, most of whom will not be British nationals.

The schools who will be more likely to close are the girls' schools. They are not nearly so financially well off as the big public schools.

Or maybe people should just pay for themselves rather than expecting the "nanny" state to subsidise private education?
Or does self-reliance as a philosophy only apply to poor people?

There's one hell of a difference between the ultra rich sending their kids to Eton, compared to our plasterer who sends his son to a local private school in a run down Northern town, because he was failing, getting in with a gang, etc at the local comp which was in special measures! Our plasterer can't afford it, but is doing it to stop his son risking a life of crime (or losing his life). In the year he's been in the private school, he's turned things around and has made massive progress. Lots of private schools out in the regions are specialists in "problem" children from pretty low income backgrounds. How will our plasterer afford a 20% increase when he can't afford the private fees now? So it's back to the crap comp and back to the gang culture for him!

Surely when someone pays privately, they're saving the country/taxpayer money, so should actually get a contribution. They're not getting a subsidy, they're saving the taxpayer money!

@HRTQueen "surely the school will help them". No, they can't, that's the point that I and many others have tried to explain, Most private schools are NOT Eton and have very tight margins. That's why a lot of the smaller private schools, whilst providing a fantastic, rounded education with loads of extra curricular stuff going on often have quite shabby premises and facilities once you get beyond the immediate facades. As I said upthread, if you are ideologically opposed to private schools and have an answer as to how each LEA will cope with the additional children in their already overcrowded schools, go ahead and add the VAT, but it won't suddenly create millions in extra funding for the state because many of the schools will close and no, the parents can't all "just find it" as a pp on the previous page said, so they WILL close and the state sector will have to factor in another, say 5% of kids, whose parents probably WILL afford tutors and crowd out the top sets, or start a bidding war for houses in good catchments. Its NOT a solution to the woes of the country, just an easy feel good lash out at the "toffs".

Except I shared the stats in this thread. Nearly all people who go to private school are in the top 5% of earners.
And if that plasterer hires other workers they probably are in that top 5% as well.

Do you really believe in a big state that pays for all people's choices?
Because charitable status for private schools is state support.

I do not think we should abolish private schools. I do think people should pay for it themselves without any state support.

"I do not think we should abolish private schools. I do think people should pay for it themselves without any state support."

That penalises people who cannot afford to pay for their child with severe SEND needs. What are you suggesting they do - stay at home, out of sight? Fail miserably at the local comprehensive?
Are you suggesting the state takes over the running of these schools? That'll cost far more than the tax saved.

I’m well aware that most school are not Eaton

but again its the most privileged children who go to private school some more so than others. The average family can not put away £5k a year let alone the costs for high school why pretend they can hence why 6/7 % of children attend private school many more parent would love to be able to make that choice

why do you think there wouldn’t be support particularly from this government ? but the government and attitudes prop up this notion that it’s not such a privileged position as seen on this thread

privilege on top of privilege is that what we want in our society or to be teaching our children isn’t it enough that often they are getting a better education due to smaller classes, more resources, less social issues that schools are having to manage

Plenty of SEN children go to private schools whose fees are paid by the local authority.
If the local authority does not pay the fees, then yes you should pay the full fees.

But you're not answering the key question which is how will the state deal with the extra 5% or so of kids who end up in the state system when so many smaller private schools close? There won't BE additional revenue from the VAT because the schools will have closed. Only some will be able to remain, attended by the super rich many of whom will pay taxes offshore. The additional children will be in state schools, already overcrowded and underfunded and the skew on houseprices in good catchments will increase. Parents will use their money on mortgages and tutors instead of fees and still "buy" their kids privilege. By all means implement this but not until you have an answer to those issues.

Exactly. Just wait for the politicians and civil servants in a few years' time bemoaning the "unforeseen" or "unexpected" consequences of these policies. As usually, they're completely incapable of common sense and the obvious consequences that are entirely foreseeable and expected!

Because it won’t be 5%

are you suggesting that only 1% or 2% of children that attend private school their parents could afford the extra fees or that the schools could take on some of the costs

The idea that children in private schools will suddenly all be in the state sector if the state no longer subsidises private schools is nonsense. Virtually all the pupils are in the top 5% income of households. Are you really saying this top 5% of income households value their private education so little that a relatively small rise in fees will make them put their child in the state school?

You said "I do think people should pay for it themselves without any state support".

I know many go to private schools with LA funding. That was my point.

"Virtually all the pupils are in the top 5% income of households."

That's not true. You appear to have very little idea of what you're talking about if you can assert that sort of wild claim.

Top 5% covers a vast salary range - from about £100k. Our basic outgoings (not including school fees) are <£5k per month and that's just to stand still. There will be plenty of people in the income bracket who have larger mortgages, high loan repayments, etc and will not be able to just "find" the extra.

Those at the very top - yes. But there is absolutely no question that it would increase state school numbers.

No DC in private school personally, but mainly because I'm in the catchment of a lovely village state school. I don't judge the choices of others who may not be.

Doh, >£5k per month!

If you are not prepared to prioritise your spending, why would you expect taxpayers to bail you out?

I did not assert it. I posted already on this thread a link to the research that shows this fact.

Can you explain how you think the state is subsidising private schools?
different types of legal person are taxed at different rates. A company’s profits are taxed at a lower rate than my income, for example. Do you think that equates to state subsidy of corporations?

Private schools are subsidised by the state as their status as charities gives them a tax break.

First of all, a subsidy involves giving something, not failing to take it. But leaving that aside, What tax break do you think the government gives them?
as stated, different types of legal persons are subject to taxation in different ways and at different rates. I am taxed at a higher rate on my income than a company limited by shares is on its profits. Do you think that means the company is getting a “tax break”?