Kier starmer! He hates strivers!

[Bucketheadbucketbum]

He wants to introduce a policy to put up the cost of school fees 10 to 15%. This is a tax on hard-working parents! We slave away cutting cots everywhere living hand to mouth to try and improve our childrens future . Live in an average house average area 1 shit car no holidays work like a dog to get our kids through. We are easing the burden on the state system by choosing independent schools. We're not sending them to Eton paid by our trust fund! Why does he want to punish strivers! Tax the energy companies! So disappointed. We need a new political party. What's the point in trying to better your future.

It’s really not making me feel uncomfortable. It’s nonsensical and hard to engage with as a bit silly but no feelings of discomfort don’t worry.

It is certainly nonsensical to not tax a luxury item, when the rich already pay a lower proportion of their income in tax than the poor.

The rich aren’t doing it to support state - that’s your conclusion and I haven’t stated this. More that when people go on about ‘subsidising the rich’ it’s the wrong way round. It’s not about feel good altruism - it’s that people are mistaken when they think they are subsidising others.

It’ll be a very depressing consequence.

This is a terrible link. It’s as if a ten year old socialist did it. Read up more I’d say. Try ONS

Where is the data to support the argument that "the needy"
benefit from private schools being able to claim charitable status?

I know this one.

The answer is they haven't. How can they when they promote them and put them in a position of authority over other MPs?

I have no problem with private education and those who choose to use it, I do have a problem with it being subsidised by the taxpayers in the form of tax breaks.

But surely that just goes to show that private schools aren't really charities anyway, if they were, surely they would continue with their charitable work no matter what their status?

No it doesn’t prove this. They are behaving like charities as they are charities.

Take the status away and make them businesses and they are free to change.

If there are 100 bursary students in a school they wouldn’t have that chance if and wen it ends. People will feel good they’ve taken stuff away from others but it’s very depressing.

Here you go!

It depends on how you define 'tax burden'. In total financial contribution, higher earners obviously pay a lot more.

As a proportion of gross income? It's a different story.

In total financial contribution, higher earners obviously pay a lot more.

yes they do. And Blair was good at not demonising them whilst this happened.

Changing the tax law to reflect reality isn't demonising anyone.

They are already businesses.

If there are 100 bursary students in a school they wouldn’t have that chance if and wen it ends

Don't make me laugh 100!!. Eton has a maximum of 14 in a good year.

It’s also patronising to suggest that those who can’t afford, or who chose not to,
send their children to private school are somehow not ‘striving‘ for their children.

these schools are businesses - not charities.
which many in here with their ‘ my child will have to leave and go to the local school to mix with ‘riff-raft’ bleating seem to acknowledge as the assume is these businesses will immediately increase their prices for their customers

They can stay as charities (and get the tax advantages that gives) by doing their much needed work in the community but VAT can still be charged on fees.

Genuine question, what other things available only to those with substantial amounts money should also be VAT free?

One might ask, why after 150 years since we got the first universal education act, poorer children still have to rely on a Victorian system of education to get just a small amount of what the wealthy take for granted?

In a landmark case in 2011, the UK’s Upper Tribunal ruledd_ that the law “requires that those who benefit from the charity’s purpose must be sufficiently numerous to constitute ‘a section of the public’”. While school-age children obviously constitute a significant part of the public, fee levels exclude a very large proportion of them. How, then, are private schools not in breach of their public benefit obligations?
The Upper Tribunal ruled that, in making adequate provision for “the poor”, consideration should be given as to whether the charity in question provides a “luxury” service. Its judgment stated that, while the provision of luxury facilities is no bar to charitable status, there is a greater onus on private schools to demonstrate how they provide a public benefit.

theconversation.com/amp/the-public-cost-of-private-schools-rising-fees-and-luxury-facilities-raise-questions-about-charitable-status-182060

Are you even in U.K.? Laugh all you like.

In the school I know well yes. That’s the figure.

‘bursary’

Bursary is a word that can mean anything. Our local girl’s independent give 20% of kids a bursary - which they love to boast about - they’re worth £1k each a year. You can apply for up to 3 but are very competitive.
£1k off & £18k a year is nice but isn’t levelling the playing field.
Friends very clever child has been given on of 2 available scholarships to a famous school - 50% off, the highest discount they give- she still has to pay £16k a year in fees.
again - well done that kid but that’s still
a LOT of money to find for anyone …

bursary doesn’t mean a free place it means a bit off…

How are we not subsidising the rich.

If the rich don't pay their fair share of tax, be it non-dom, off-shore tax avoidance, or indeed VAT exemption for their "charity" school, the tax burden falls to the less well off. No?

Yes full bursaries are like hens teeth, the vast majority get 10 to 30 % off, only then if they are gifted at sport music academic & continue to be the next Laura Muir or Einstein, if they don't the bursary can be withdrawn.

But the huge problem is then being able to afford uniform and the extras private school children get.

If you are paid by state I can see why it’s attractive but given this is true

In total financial contribution, higher earners obviously pay a lot more

Hopefully behaviour won’t change too much. Apparently treasury follows static model but we’ve seen in last few years how behaviour can change.

Hopefully you’re all right and land of riches is coming.

yes they do. And Blair was good at not demonising them whilst this happened.

Who's demonising?

Rnib is a charity, Eton etc is not.