High earners to pay for their children state schools

[Verycold]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25798659

They cope with housing benefit. My DH works for a housing charity

Disagree as well Custardo. Having lived all over the UK, 80k in a lot of the UK would make you comparatively rich. In London and the SE, it won't.

So to those of you who think 80k a rich family makes...how would you define a family earning
160k
350k
700k
1milion
10 million

All the same? all rich?

I live in the south east - 80k is a lot of money

blueberry I think your post is probably aiming to define 80k as a 'middle' income.

it must be pointed out that the average income ONS 2012 is 26500 per annum

2 people working full time on an average wage is not even close to 80k

there should be a recognition that 80k is a lot of money because it is - so you don't have the cash int he bank because you are investing in property

It's a bit simplistic to try to compare income brackets between different parts of the country isn't it? Housing, transport and childcare costs vary hugely (and I mean HUGELY). £80k could leave one family with little disposable income in London whilst £40k could leave another family elsewhere with far more cash to spend.

It's also a bit simplistic to suggest everyone simply 'chooses' how to spend their money. Many people are tied to locations by their careers and have little choice where they live and therefore how they spend the bulk of their income.

I can't believe the gov are doing it again to our 'affluent' generation - my DH and I earn £100k between us, which SHOULD be a fortune BUT:
We have 2 DC in nursery which costs us £29k per yr, add to that a mortgage which is on a high interest rate after the credit crunch, having child benefit taken away and tax vouchers lowered because my DH is a higher tax payer, and increasing living costs, we're struggling big time. But we saw light at the end of the tunnel in a couple of years when our DC go to one of the local state schools and we can start paying back our debts, get back on track and then start saving for their uni fees should they wish to go. If they introduce this, we're f*

It wouldn't be possible to force people to pay for state education & schools would become non compulsory. The system of education would break down - those who could afford private schooling would do this, those who could home school as well would be ok but many kids just wouldn't get an education.

OK - hypothetical situation.

Single parent earns £80k - prob about £4k a month net?

2 kids both in nursery fulltime - about £2k
2 bed flat southeast minimum £1.5k month
Food £250/month
Bills/clothes and kids stuff/car and petrol/doing anything else ..£250/month
Savings - zero

Conclusion - not rich

It's also a bit simplistic to suggest everyone simply 'chooses' how to spend their money. Many people are tied to locations by their careers and have little choice where they live and therefore how they spend the bulk of their income

This^

agree impty

I seriously hope this won't get introduced. Please bear in mind that 80k is taxed at a higher rate than 25k. On a net basis, it is not 3x as much. A 12k payrise would give us a few hundred pounds more. Not 1k per month more.

Where I currently live, 400k would buy you a 2-3 bedroom house. You get a lot more for your money 100 miles further to the West or North (not South or East)... but one has to also work for a living.

you are paying large mortgage on a house worth a shit load more than people who earn considerably less than you

I don't know if that's directed at me, but if it is then it isn't reflective of my situation because:
A) I don't have a mortgage of anywhere near that size
B) I don't live in the SE
C) I don't have a household income anywhere near £80k.

The fact that this stupid mans idea wouldn't affect me doesn't meant that I cat see that it is bullshit and that £80k household income doesn't always mean that somebody is rich

We are in this supposedly "rich" bracket - just. We have a huge mortgage. Before that we had huge rent. Both times on relatively modest properties in a terrible state of disrepair. That is the joy of London! At least now we have some security and the hope that we can pay it off before retirement and be relatively self-sufficient then.

We can't all move out of London to cheaper places at once, what would happen to London schools then? (Or, indeed, to the cost of properties elsewhere once we all wanted to buy / rent them).

The politics of envy make us all poorer. We should all be working together to campaign for excellent state schools for all. Then we will all win.

For those who think that the policy would be fair and that families with an income of £80k should pay for places at good state schools or have to send their children to a poorer school which could be many miles away....what would you think if some loony politician decided that people who pay less than £10k a year in income tax shouldn't be able to access good schools for their children because they haven't contributed enough and therefore their children should be penalised. The low income families should therefore only be able to send their children to schools deemed poor regardless of their catchment.

Divide and rule, that's what this nonsense is.

I agree it is divide and rule

It just narks it is ALWAYS the working poor and non working poor who get kicked in the balls - and no one gives a shit

I mean the disabled have been royally screwed over with regards to benefits - hardly heard a peep on mumsnet

but as soon as some loony guy suggests those who actually have money need to get fucked up the arse - its a different story.

"We have to end this unfair farce whereby middle-class parents dominate the best schools, when they could afford to pay, and even boast of their moral superiority in using the state system when all they are doing is squeezing the poor from the best schools,"
well it is kind of true isn't it?

Please bear in mind that 80k is taxed at a higher rate than 25k.

I don't agree with Seldon's idiocy either. I think state schools should be available to all because we are supposed to be a cohesive society, and there are obvious problems with leaving state schools available only to the poorest in terms of what will then happen to those state schools, even leaving aside the issue that richer families have paid for those schools via their taxes several times over. But having said that: tax bands are the exact same for everyone, in that earnings above a band are taxed at the higher rate and earnings below at the lower. We all have a personal allowance a little over £9k which never attracts any tax; then we move into a further band which allows another £32k attracting 20% tax, and then people lucky enough to be getting over £41.4k pay 40% tax, but ONLY on earnings above that £41.4. We all pay the exact same tax levels within each earning band.

Everyone is entitled to the same tax bands for each step of earnings, it's just that the majority of the country are never in a position to find that out. Someone on £25k pa salary is not lucky enough to ever reach the higher tax rate, but everyone's £25k is taxed at the exact same rate - whether it's all you earn, or whether you're on £150k a year. Higher tax is payable only on earnings in excess of the threshold, NOT the full earnings.

But wouldnt it come to exactly the same thing, if they just raised income tax and then upped the amount that was spent on schools?

The reason that grammar schools (and good comprehensives) are stuffed full of MC kids is because they are rare. If there was a grammar school (or excellent comprehensive) in every town, they wouldn't be, because there would be room for all the kids with the potential to benefit.

We all have a personal allowance a little over £9k

Not true. There is no personal allowance if you earn 100k or more. So of you earn 99k you are 9k better off than if you earn 100k. Ridiculous but true.

Oh, and as an additional reminder: median salary is £23k, and 90% of the country are on less than £50k. It's not oligarch territory, £80k (largely due to runaway house price inflation) but let's not pretend it's the norm or anything like it, either. I do NOT agree with Seldon: I think basic state provision of services should be available to all, and at a good level, for the sake of everyone. But the pleas of genteel poverty on an £80k wage are pretty insulting to the half the country who have to struggle, God knows how, on that £23k or less. Volunteer in the CAB sometime, and then try telling yourself your finances are a struggle. If you earn rather more than three times the wage the majority are on, you are by definition comfortably off.

Impty, I stand corrected - have to admit I am unlikely ever to find that one out! Though it's a difficulty I am sure I could endure, if forced.

perfectstorm said it better than I did - agree wholeheartedly

The most idiotic policy discussion ever. I paid 27k in tax and NI last year. I am self employed, and I earnt a good wage by working 60hrs + per week every week with no holidays, days off, limited nights out. I took a few weeks maternity only. I dont get child benefit, I don't get maternity pay. My income covers my bills (large mortgage and childcare) by a couple of hundred pounds to spare each month which is usually eaten by unexpected bills. I am not rich and I could not afford this. So I'd be better off sat on my arse putting less tax money in to the public coffers, claiming my benefits so I dont have to pay for a school place. I am sick of this country. Dont even get me started on your views LauraBridges.

Why am I killing myself working when some twunt makes up policies like this.

It is no coincidence that these great schools are in predominantly 'middle class' catchment areas - 'middle class' parents have put the effort in with a kick start on education at home in many instances which reflects on the schools results. Pull all those parents away from a school and push them to private and standards will drop in the state schools.