Tax breaks for those paying for private education

[Sophia95]

I recently read a letter in our local paper from a couple saying they deserved tax breaks because they sent their kids to private schools and were 'relieving the system'. This really rattled me, but I am interested to know what other people think about this.

I think it would be nice and quite justified in one way. But there are so many groups of people who need more money it's a dumb thing to campaign for. It would cost a lot of money and probably benefit people who were making the choice anyway rather than encourage the choice. I think it would probably mean eg people who don't have the house painted to pay for private school will get the house painted, or will go abroad on holiday rather than stay at home etc. Those sacrifices wouldn't need to be as deep. It's not a food on the table issue.

HOWEVER carers and disabled people, and families of disabled people, seem to get chuff all of what they actually need. I'd rather see the money go into specialised education or respite care.

But yes, there's a theoretical argument to be made for it.

Personally, I think it would be better if the tax savings were used to send children that otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it to those schools or improve their education in some way. But as mmrsceptic says there are so many other demands on the public purse atm there's no way it's going to happen, so no need to get rattled really.

Most private schools have charitable status, this means they don't pay business rates IIRC and there's other advantages, they should use these fund to help pay for places for those who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford a place.

Personally I like tax breaks for those of us who are working to try and feed our kids and give them basics in life and breaks for those who have kids that are disabled and other things like that. If you can afford to feed your children and give them more than the basics in life then you are damned luckily and should be counting your blessings IMHO.

I kind of see their point, but it is their choice so no, there are better ways to spend taxes and not enough enough money to go round.

If the government needed to relieve pressure on the state system for some reason, then it might be a sensible thing to think about as it would make private schools accessible to more people. But they don't! And in any case, if they did it that way, the people who might then take up the offer are probably those who with a bit of scrimping could manage it anyway rather than those who genuinely could never contemplate it.

You don't get tax rebates for not using other council provided services, so not really sure why education should be any different.

They may have a point since they are effectively paying for a service from the state that they are not using, but they do get the tax break indirectly because the schools get charitable status (as pointed out above). It'll never happen though.

"You don't get tax rebates for not using other council provided services, so not really sure why education should be any different."

Yes this undermines the whole argument. You'd have to be consistent and that would be impossible.

But they kind of manage it in France, by providing state levels of teaching staff to private schools & the schools add more extras over the top. But then the French schools have to follow the equivalent of their national curriculum and are less autonomous in teacher recruitment & things in return. Not sure UK independent schools would really welcome that level of loss of independence.

Well it's clearly never going to be a vote winner.

But what I would be really interested to know is if there are any areas where relatively large numbers of middle-income families have stopped sending their DCs to private school due to the recession/job losses etc, if that's had a discernible impact on state schools?? Anecdotal evidence anyone...? Does it put more pressure on an otherwise oversubscribed and over-competitive system, or is it benefitting state schools?

Right, off to find a bumsex thread now, that was waaay to heavy for Friday night!

IIRC they used to do this in the UK aswell.

I'm interested in 30andMerkin's question too.

Because you often hear that reason cited on here, but there's no real evidence for it being anything other than a rather smug, specious, pseudo-altruistic justification.

Just to clarify, I mean the other way round... the "saving state school resources" thing being used as a justification for using private school.

I read the other day that 18% of kids are privately educated at 16+ (A level) - so not such a teensy minority as some would like to believe.

Schools get funded per student don't they? So if a child is placed into the private sector then the state school they may have attended doesn't recieve the funding, they may also loose a very bright child (SATS results, boosts attainment levels for some of the other children). You could also claim that there's more cars on the roads as the private schools are further from home so the children have to be ferried there.

what wankers

But the best performing schools are normally oversubscribed, and kids don't just go to their most geographically local school do they? So presumably the wealthier, more mobile (in terms of houses, car ownership, parents not doing shift work etc etc) families get a higher percentage of pupils in the most desirable schools. Does that have a trickle-down effect, or does it remove opportunities for kids who otherwise would have been at that good school if only Hugo or Jemima (just to get a few public school cliches in!) hadn't been there??

My gut feeling is that is what would happen in some cases 30andMerkin. Catchment areas of top state schools would get even smaller and grammars would require even more intensive tutoring for averagely bright child to get places - the truely exceptional would still get in whatever their background, but the remaining places would be more likely to go to the Hugos and Jemimas.

Even in areas with Grammar schools or outstanding secondary schools then the parents of Hugo and Jemima will more then likely opt for the state school though. At ds's first prep 50% went on to a state secondary rather then a private secondary. If there was a state grammar school here then the perecntage getting a placer there would be alot higher. Surly this is taking a place of a child who has not been in a private school?

"Surely this is taking a place of a child who has not been in a private school?"

That's the sort of comment that gives weight to the argument for tax relief.

I mean, if parents have paid to educate a child to a level higher than the state would have done (as assumed by "taking the place of a state child"), and is deemed by that act to have forsaken a state place for the sake of worse-educated children: if the state then expects them to continue to educate the child at their own expense, then the state ought to offer tax relief.

So that kind of comment is really silly.

If all state schools were equally good as each other then taking a place at one wouldn't be an issue. But if you decide to have eg a hip replacement privately, someone else gets your place in the nhs queue, but you still wouldn't expect a tax rebate for not using the NHS. I can't really see the difference.

Well that's the point of the discussion really mmrsceptic, entirely hypothetically.

I'm not saying for a moment there should ever be tax relief on what is basically a lifestyle choice, but just trying to work out if all the children who are in private schools suddenly came back into the state system, would it be able to cope?? Theoretcially of course it should be able to - because after all those parents have been paying taxes towards their childrens' education. And of course it might have a hugely positive effect. But then equally it would might knacker it completely.

Tax relief on anything basically means less money in the public purse to pay for essential services. Tax relief is used by governments to try and engineer certain types of investment or behaviour. To be honest I even find it a bit galling that businesses can go out and buy new equipment to benefit their business and can (up to a limit)claim the expenditure back against tax. I can't claim the cost of my cooker or my bed!

I live in borough where the majority of kids go to private schools but there is no discernable benefit for state schools - the opposite probably - especially for secondaries.

There are a lot of state funded facilities I don't use but don't expect to get a discount on my income tax or council tax.

It's a terrible idea and one that completely misunderstands the provision. Tax breaks - or any other form of refund from the state - reduce health and education to individual products to be 'consumed' rather than a service which benefits society as a whole. At some stage in the financial ecology all those who buy independent education or healthcare relay heavily on the provision of service to other members of society (to educate or keep their workforce or other people they rely on - pilots / bus drivers / Ocado delivery drivers / teachers etc healthy, for example) - it is for the good of society as a whole.

How would it work if people who live on private 'unadopted' roads declined to contribute to the wider road system? It wouldn't function - they rely on all the roads elsewhere for all sorts of things and to link to thier own little private road.

It's depressing that people's vision is so self-referential.