it'd be interesting to see how much the gift-in-aid and VAT exemptions are worth, compared to the amount it would cost the Exchequer to educate those priced-out if VAT were added to the fees (real figures, not private school provided, in case such exist and someone starts brandishing them). With the income tax from gift-in-aid retained by the Treasury (some donations are blardy enormous), and VAT applied on fees (and many private school pupils come from overseas, anyway, actually), we could perhaps manage to state educate those priced out on the proceeds. I don't believe the correct application of the 17.5% will dissuade enough parents from privately educating, to remove that net benefit to the Treasury.
"Qally - the charitable status is offered because it costs the revenue less than paying for state education for those children whose parents whose income is at such a level that they would not be able to afford the fees if they went up due to loss of the school's tax status.
It is simple hard headed economics. The government never GIVES anything away! "
Sorry, Yorkshire Rose, but that's utter rubbish. I studied the history of charities as part of my degree. Wealthy families used to educate their kids at home, their own or with another asristo family - schools such as Eton were set up to benefit the poor, fees being standard then in the same way as most schools today in sub-Saharan Africa charge fees. The charitable status of private education is a total historical accident, and the government has been applying increasing pressure on schools to prove that they share their facilities with the local people and offer generous bursaries, because without that, it's a tax dodge for the wealthy, but one it's politically tricky to remove as the powerful tend to privately educate.
It's a total nonsense to say people are "subsidising schools with their taxes" - are you subsidising criminals with your prisons, too? We all benefit from an educated population. Not quite sure why that point is lost. We rarely drive and don't own a car; my mother is Quaker. Other people are childless. Yet we all still pay for Defence and roads and schools. Such is democratic life.
Scienceteacher, I can think of one excellent reason your kids might benefit from a state education. They'd be less likely to regard poor people and everyone unlucky enough to need state help as "spongers". What horrifying attitudes: so denying the Treasury via tax avoidance is absolutely fine, but needing 50 odd quid a week from the Treasury to be able to eat makes someone the lowest of the low?
I have no problem with private education, just with tax breaks aimed squarely at the wealthiest.