To think that if you send DC to independent school or home-ed you should not have to pay for state education?

[valhala]

I think I can see all sides of this debate, which came up amongst a group of friends and I today. The group was about 60% female and was socially quite mixed, with a range of ages, classes and income brackets. The topic of conversation came round to whether, if you do not have your child educated in the state sector but instead opt to home educate or send him to an independent school, you should receive a tax credit to reflect this which could go towards the cost of your choice of schooling.

The state school parents were perhaps the least enthusiastic but by no means did all of them reject the idea, whilst the home-eders had reservations about the cost of this plan in terms of restrictions on how they taught being implemented by a government anxious to tighten up home education law although they agreed that they would like the money to help them do the job themselves (which they told me was on average £5K p.a.) .

Interestingly, some of those who send their children to independent schools were not as anxious to see their money refunded as others - although whether due to social conscience or just being too darn well-off to care, I didn't like to ask!

Out of fascination I thought I'd post the question here - if I say that a tax credit should be paid under these circumstances, AIBU?

Have not read thread but surely if this occurred then people with NO children should get tax back too? For Everything? and so on....

So, to flip this on the head- DS3 attends a special school where places cost far more than MS, should we pay more tax?

A poor idea: one thing having a disabled child teaches you is vulnerability- loss of income / jealth / status- you may think they an't happen to you (and force reliance on the state provisions) but you would have to be exceptionally rich for that to be the case ( think residentialc are for the severely disabled at £200k a year.....)

Also agree with the societal benefit argument (and that costs ofadminsitration when sahred between taxpayers would probably save people about 2p a year)- but think the provision if I need it is most complelling if you have a very individualistic viewpoint as surely someone who cwishes to take this route would have to hold.

So are very large amount of posters think YABU.
Will you take this on board OP?
Probably not

Yuk, terrible idea... you're not paying for just your own children, but for others who definitely can't afford independent or private education. Same as NI, if you're privately insured you still have to pay as you're paying for those who can't. It's called social responsibility. We take care of those who can't.

And meanwhile, those who choose not to work get get get from hardworking taxpayers. How is that fait?

*fair

vinblanc, no one gets benefits if they choose not to work, not really. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you can't prove you are actively seeking employment then you get your JSA withdrawn. I don't think it's as simple as if you choose to not work you get paid. There is abuse of the system of course, but there's abuse in all systems.

What about the hoards on Child Tax Credit and other family based benefits? There are many who could work, but choose not to.

Nice if you can get away with it.

No, not fair. It's a nutty argument. Or I'd like the 450 quid back for my daughters HPV vax that she's not going to have.

This should be a little twinge then put to the back of your mind. We all pay for things we don't want and don't use. But you know, there are intangible benefits to living this way, it's a civilised way to live and share, and you just have to accept that.

It's great if you happen to be on the take, skeptic. Not so if you are a net giver.

But you get Child Tax credit and other family based benefits when you do work.

Our income is v.low and we pretty much rely on them. Both my OH and I work part time.

Thank feck that I paid my taxes all those years when I was able to work full time and so was he. As we both started work at 16 and are now in our 40s that equates to nearly 50 years of paying taxes. Now our circumstances do not allow it we cushioned from abject poverty.

Bloody brilliant and our kids get free education and healthcare.

I love this country.

Totally ridiculous idea. Dimwitted, in fact.

I am a net giver. Most definitely. But will I always be? Life is unpredictable.

Those hoards as you so pleasantly refer to them vinblanc have been assessed as having an income not sufficient to provide an adequate standard of living, and have benefits paid to them to bring them in line with those of us who are lucky enough to have a better standard of living.

It must be very depressing to resent every penny you give... personally I like knowing that I contribute to one of the best living standards in the world. I like knowing that someone who hasn't had my advantages in life can have a chance to go to a good school, get an education and better themselves. I feel it can only be beneficial for society as a whole, of which I'm a part. So it comes full circle.

If that makes me a net giver, then so be it.

So if you never get ill, you should never pay tax towards the NHS?
And if you never claim benefits you shouldn't pay tax toward that either?
I can see where the OP is coming from, but there is no way around it.

'What about the hoards on Child Tax Credit and other family based benefits? There are many who could work, but choose not to.'

Because as withs atte education its tehre as a safety net

Yes you can target the takers if you are willing to accept that many without choice will be hurt as collateral damage

or you can accept a few will play the system in order to rpotect those who have had bad luck.

Until last year we were in the givers category- since then DH ahs become redundant and returned to Uni to retrain (whilst also working but pulling a tiny income compared to what is required); I am carer for 2 disabled children and so very liimited, I am however also studying in the evenings so we can both perhaps drag our arses out of this in the long term. I did plan to work evenings but couldn't find a job- badly hit by recession here.

We are the non-cheaters, the doing--our-best-with-a-bad-lot guys and pulling TC's etc will see us on our arses and homeless. Whetehr that is acceptable collateral damge or too much is, of course, a personal decision: I am proud to say that ven when we had money to spare (not much but enough) that I never wished to place anyone at increaed risk in order to maximise my share.

(Sorry that was to vinblanc)

You never know what is around the corner and when you might need benefits or the suchlike.
Someone with children in private education might find themselves unexpectedly unemployed and unable to pay for the aforementioned education and so have to put their children into state eduction.

of course YABU

I havn't driven all week nor been to GP/hospital can I have a credit for that too please?

had I had the misfortune to do so should I be sent a bill?

It's the most stupid idea I have heard in a long time.

thanks for making me laugh.

PS glad to hear I no longer have to pay for the armed forces (as a pacifist). Or the benefit system (haven't ever claimed...quite happy to stop CB).

ffs.

vinblanc- thank you for keeping this country afloat single-handedly. What with you supporting the NHS, everyone on benefits, state education etc., you must be exhausted.

I don't think you're getting the credit you deserve

Oh, sorry, I see from the OP that she is paying for the state education system.

Apologies.

No.

Unless the same thing applied for health services, and for people who choose not to have children.

People and very presumptious and defensive on this thread.

vinblanc... I don't think I was presumtious or defensive... you sounded very presumtious though in your definition of the hoards of people claiming benefits so they choose to not work.