High earners to pay for their children state schools

[Verycold]

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

Shameless publicity seeking rubbish. I'd be very worried if my kids were at a school he was in charge of, be it state or private (not that we can afford private).

What a shame these types of debates always descend into silly arguments about how insulting it is to those on average wage for someone else to plead genteel poverty on 80k. These types of comments take no account of a particular person's age, marital status, outgoings incl. mortgage, location, number of children, pension plan, and how many hours or years of work or training, it took to get to the 80k. A 23 year old on 80k feels very different to a 53 year old on 80k. One might feel rich knowing they have decades to work and salary may escalate way beyond that while another may be fearing redundancy any time knowing it may be hard to find another job that pays remotely as well.

If Seldon wanted publicity, he's got it ...his report is referenced in virtually every national newspaper and the BBC...he's obviously courting maximum attention.

Wait a moment... when people talk about these 25k or 80k salaries on this thread is that the household income or per adult??? The era of SAHMs is sort of ending. I agree 80k per adult would be a great income. But our "household" income is around 100k, and it's not actually as much as you'd expect once rent, bills, tranaport and debt payments are taken out (let alone nursery fees).

snowbells
the median household income - ie the one that half the population have more, half have less is £27,000

the median personal income is £19,000 - in London its £26,000
so half of all adults in London survive on less than £26,000 - out of which they pay rent and bills and travel and clothes and food

TalkinPeace So I'm assuming that's gross of tax?

TalkinPeace So I'm assuming that's gross of tax?

snowbells
yes
BUT the tax allowance is high enough that in a household with two part time workers, net and gross are nearly the same

and the bit that the idiot Seddon forgets is that the top 10% of earners pay over 40% of the income tax in the UK
many of them choose not to use state schools so subsidise even more

this puts it all rather into focus
www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world

It median personal income is 19k / 26k in London then many of those households are likely to have more than one wage earner. If we are talking about household income of £80k vs personal income of 19k/26k then we aren't even talking about comparable incomes. Bearing in mind that 2 incomes = 2 personal tax allowances and child benefit if they have children and those incomes are average. Also student loan repayments are much lower if you have 2 average incomes than one singly earned household salary of 80k
You see stats and all that goes with them do not tell the full story about affluence.

This is a daft idea.

We have a tax system that is based on the individual when it's taking money, but on the household when granting benefits. We have various regressive and unfair taxes.

This creates perverse incentives at different income levels and I think adding yet another arbitrary tax at yet another arbitrary income level causes more problems than it solves.

And why not have those people living in relatively crime free areas pay a little more towards policing as a result.

Why on earth do people think it's always the more wealthy who need to pay for everything? Do people want communism?

The NHS is next.

We have a tax system that is based on the individual when it's taking money, but on the household when granting benefits. We have various regressive and unfair taxes.

I agree with this^

And if you live near a hospital with better chances of not dying, you should pay for your hip operation.

utter, utter, tosh

I think Barbour makes a good point. When judging another household's finances, it's easy to gloss over details that make a huge difference.

Families with children, the families who would be hit with this new tax, have a different profile than the national average income. Statistics are tricky. And probably another thing that could be better taught in state schools!

If he wants to close the gap, then private schools should be scrapped altogether and school places allocated on a lottery basis within a geographical area. More schools with local authorities holding the budgets as they're closer to the ground.

However he doesn't really want to close the gap. So this will never happen.

I'm paying taxes and do not think I should pay more to schools when they should be doing their job. Unfortunately we measure the performance of schools based on academic criteria when that is fundamentally flawed - not all children are academic.

What do private schools do with children who are less academic?

I am one of the ones above saying that we don't live like kings on £80k because of when we managed to buy our house and where we have to live for our jobs. No, we are not in genteel poverty and it is true that we probably have a higher degree of comfort and security than many. But we certainly do not have an extra £30 k or whatever figure it would be to pay for our children's schooling!

I wouldn't call a couple earning 40k each "high earners". I wouldn't say they were poor either, but it's not a level that normally allows you to afford private education and certainly not for more than one child, so it's not like they are taking from the state or something in sending the children to state school.

But I don't think Seldon is an "idiot" - he puts these ideas out to provoke discussion. I preferred the suggestion about private schools having to take 25% of pupils from under-privileged backgrounds.

Not all children are academic.

^THIS.

Also... a lot of self-employed people in 'working class' type of professions earn more than those in MC professions these days (e.g. teachers, etc.). Funnily enough... quite a few then send their kids to private schools.

Tiggy there are plenty of Tim nice but dim in the independent sector. Many will receive very extensive tutoring etc outside of school to get good grades at GCSE and beyond.

Millfield for example takes a lot of not very bright but sporty children. I don't think it's very high in any league tables.

Also if you are on £50k as a single parent bringing up a child alone you spend about £14k per child on a full time nursery place about £14k on mortgage and £14k on tax/NI and are no better off than some non-working parents. In addition plenty of those on £13k a year have housing benefit and tax credits which make their income up to £20k so they may think the £20k people live like kings but in fact they are on exactly the same net income after benefits are paid.

LauraBridges What side are you actually on?

First you say that wealthier people should pay.

Now you're saying that some non-working parents and poorer parents actually get housing benefits and tax credits that make their income similar to those that have more money???

How on earth can you then argue that those that have 'more' money should pay???

I think the head of the underpeforming school be replaced by the deputy head of the performing school.

Again all teachers to be distributed evenly. Kids allocation to be done by lottery ....

It is a fairer system and will remove the animosity towards rich and poor.

It really is simplistic but the good schools will not like it nor would the bad schools....

All the 'Jones's' types are squealing like pigs being gutted. "100,000 that's positively breadline, 'tis not fair".

Can understand why though, the writing is on the wall.

The government is hungry for money.
The poor don't have any.
The rich wont give any.
That leaves you guys...
Expect a knock at the door.