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?

There are an awful lot of people, including Mumsnetters, who choose benefits over work. There are also people who sell themselves short in the work-marketplace and get the state to supplement their income.

It is a joke that tax credits exceed the actual tax paid for many families. Surely tax credits should be less than actual tax.

Bring on the next government. And let's not wait until June.

And again - I have paid a great deal of tax all my adult life. I worked straight from school and continued to do so even when my children were little.

Yes the state does top my income to a large extent. Because we are unable to work more hours than we do. But I have paid in and now I am taking advantage of the system that I believe whole heartedly in.

Also - I dont know how old you are but I remember when the tories were in power. You had two choices then. Work or dont work and claim your entire income off the state. The moment you went back to work all support was stopped. That meant that you had to find a job that would cover everything regardless of your circumstances. Thus single parent families were stuck in the benefits system because they could not afford to pay Poll tax, rent, water rates, childcare, heating, food and all the other things that you need to survive.

Those with a low level of education and limited qualifications (not a lifestyle choice BTW) were limited to low paid jobs so they could not possibly hope to survive on their wages. And so it went on.

NOW at least people can get back into the workplace and improve theirs and their children's chances. Or those like my OH who are disabled can work in a job that allows him to stay well but doesnt pay very much due to limited hours. If these top up benefits are removed he would either have to work full time for as long as it took for his condition to worsen and thus render him unable to work ever again OR give up work right away and live on disability for the rest of his life.

We are not the family in this position. I do not believe that the majority of families are choosing to live on benefits rather than work hard. I do not believe this because I actually know families on benefits rather than just read about them in the Express and play the 'I bet they are screwing the system' game when I am shopping.

People tend to get defensive when they are attacked BTW.

YABU. We all pay for services we don't use.

So let me work out the logic of this thread...

I earn enough money to pay for an education that I believe is better that given to the masses, and I want to be financially rewarded for this.

I earn enough that I do not need tax credits to survive, therefore, those who do have chosen a morally inferior life to mine.

Madness.

I presume those advocating the I'm alright jack theory on here are ok to pay for the vaccinations of the poor? Presumeably you wouldn't want all those sick poor people infecting your family.

And as many have said, I'm sure you would like to know that the people who in all likelyhood will care for you as you age can read the instructions on the medicine bottle.
And can afford to eat and keep up their strength. People need a living wage.

I pay for the children's private education with my tax credits, always tickles me

In other countries you can choose once you earn over a certain amount to pay a 1% levvy and use the state health care andf education or you don't pay but go private, I feel that would work quite nicely, if state education is so good they'd have nothing to worry about would they ?

vinblanc, I don't think anyone sells themselves short to get top ups from the government, I think the assumption is that it's better to have a low income and some top up from the state, as eventually that low income may become a higher income and the need for some assistance will reduce. Much better system than people deciding not to work at all.

TC's kep people in work- Dh wouldn't be able to work at all without them,becuase of the way the aleternative benefits system (IS etc) works.

Ah yes roll on the next Government, the one that is likely to stop TC's- I already have details of the application form for state housing ready, as our landlady will no longer take us. Given we don't claim HB at the moment (we could, but are trying to avoid it until destitution beckons- though them even processing the forms for CTC would help immensely!) I foresee our reliance on the state rocketing. Jolly good-ho!

I believe the plan is to cut tax credits to those earning £50k plus as they don't really miss £500 a year do they ? Not that there will be many of them around this time next year though and the conservatives know that hence it's a vote winner, appealling to all the baby boomer daily mail types without actually doing any harm to the masses, quite clever really.

I hope so Molly, think its only natural I would be afeared of not knowing though- the definition of real poverty, after all, is absence of choices- and when you don't really trust those making the decisions on your behalf it cann be a bit 3am-panic-scary.

Out TCs do exceed ncome BTW, partly because we get the two boys disabiolity portions as well, and also becuase DH started a business that he can fit around caring / studying and whilst making a profit, it is still early days indeed- yet despite the lack of income, I dfind the sheer effort and sense of responsibility invovled commendable.

Perhaps if they focussed on helping people get off benefits instead- in order to take up his Uni place DH had to give up his carer's allowance. As he is almost always still here between 8 and 4 (ie children times),it seems to be more placing a barrier in the way of people on CA moving forwards (anyone would think we were cheaper to the country than alternative provision, oh what a cynic I am....)

But basically until we can known for certain that tomorrow none of us will be hit by a bus or find our pension scheme has collapsed (as my aprents have had to deal with) etc, then the tax system of this country is worth all of us contributing to. Even DH pays his bit each month, small but nonetheless a token.

What would happen if you could no longer home educate for whatever reason or you no longer could afford school fees? Would you still expect the government to educate your children, even though you've opted out?

Given you you would only get £750 a year or so, personally I would still prefer the guarantee that one way or another my children would be educated in the event of death, disease or other misfortune.

If we are in the business of issuing refunds, I don't see how you could expect those guarantees to remain in place.

Maybe it would help to see it as a compulsory insurance premium of £15 a week?

It's a perfectly valid economical and political question, but it would make a country that I don't want to live in.

Basically the question is if you choose to remove yourself from a system that is funded by your tax should you be able to claim tax back.

What if everyone else begins to think the same?

What if people who choose not to have children demand their tax back for their contributions to maternity care, child benefit, vaccination programs and other such child related government expenditure.

There would then be less money in the pot and something would have to suffer.

Basically the system is usually supported by the tax money of those who don't use it. If those people pull out the system would collapse.

Personally I'm pretty sure that I pay in more than I take out, so perhaps I should demand tax back.

However I'm aware that I'm where I am because other people were in my position when I needed help and I can't be so selfish as to do my bit now it's time. And besides who knows what the future holds, I might very well be in need some time in the future. So not only is it selfless to support the system but it's also incredibly selfish at the same time as I'm making sure that my back is covered if life does take another right turn.