Private schools, times a changing?

[pheonix478]

dimots said:

So to be clear you are suggesting state school fees on top of taxation? What a bizarre idea.
...

dimots said:

I would happily pay more tax towards education...

dimots said:

...

It is much more clear cut to tax private schools like a business, because they are businesses...

I don't see how anyone can argue against this...

Really? Organisations, in many instances without owners or shareholders, whose charter is to provide children with an education, not to make or distribute any profit? Not exactly hard to argue it's not a business in any normal sense but as your entire argument is based on incredulity anyone disagrees with your absurd assertions you crack on.

Edited by pheonix478 on Monday 8th July 17:31

[dimots]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Education isn't a luxury.

If people use private schools less, the state picks up the tab. If they cost 20% extra a lot of kids who would have gone to private schools won't.

The private education industry is growing uncontrollably, due to being tax incentivised to grow and to build more infrastructure. They provide little to no benefit to those who don't use them, and a public alternative exists that is wholly funded through taxation.

Supporting the private education system with a generous tax environment is like supporting the bottled water industry. We have a perfectly good system already, it just needs to be used by all and funded properly!

[BikeBikeBIke]

dimots said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Education isn't a luxury.

If people use private schools less, the state picks up the tab. If they cost 20% extra a lot of kids who would have gone to private schools won't.

.They provide little to no benefit to those who don't use them

Education benefits *everyone*, not just the kids who receive the education.

[Carl_VivaEspana]

dimots said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Education isn't a luxury.

If people use private schools less, the state picks up the tab. If they cost 20% extra a lot of kids who would have gone to private schools won't.

The private education industry is growing uncontrollably, due to being tax incentivised to grow and to build more infrastructure. They provide little to no benefit to those who don't use them, and a public alternative exists that is wholly funded through taxation.

Supporting the private education system with a generous tax environment is like supporting the bottled water industry. We have a perfectly good system already, it just needs to be used by all and funded properly!

this is just mental gymnastics trying to justify something that simply doesn't make sense and is illegal under EU law.

[pheonix478]

dimots said:

z4RRSchris said:

i dont have any kids why should i pay for other peoples kids to go to state school?

Very obvious, would you like to live in a country where nobody is educated?

dimots said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Education isn't a luxury.

If people use private schools less, the state picks up the tab. If they cost 20% extra a lot of kids who would have gone to private schools won't.

.They provide little to no benefit to those who don't use them

Your logic would be actually funny if you weren't arguing for me to pay 100k in VAT over the next 5 years because you find it absurd to pay 100 quid.

[Cheib]

mikey_b said:

Tonbridge’s facilities are excellent - the school is very close to me. During the 2012 Olympics the Aussie athletics team were based in the town using those facilities as their base.

They open their doors for local primary schools to each go in a couple of days a year, to do fun learning stuff like set fire to things in the science labs, do archery and swimming in the enormous and first class sports facilities, and put on productions in their theatre. It will be interesting to see if these sorts of things carry on if the VAT thing comes in. I hope so, my daughters absolutely loved it when it was their school’s time to go in.

I don’t think the VAT rise will directly stop schools like Tonbridge opening their doors to local children but there will now be pressure on these schools to maximise how much they can earn from their facilities. Visiting kids may still get access to classrooms and theatre the swimming pool might be getting rented out.

[pheonix478]

Cheib said:

I don’t think the VAT rise will directly stop schools like Tonbridge opening their doors to local children but there will now be pressure on these schools to maximise how much they can earn from their facilities. Visiting kids may still get access to classrooms and theatre the swimming pool might be getting rented out.

I think you're right. Most of the people I've met at these schools are passionate about education and won't be as vindictive as those campaigning against them. I suspect opportunities to use educational facilities will remain but facilities that could otherwise be used by the paying public will dry up. If they're going to be treated like businesses then they are going to need to start acting like them to survive.

[dimots]

pheonix478 said:

I think you're right. Most of the people I've met at these schools are passionate about education and won't be as vindictive as those campaigning against them. I suspect opportunities to use educational facilities will remain but facilities that could otherwise be used by the paying public will dry up. If they're going to be treated like businesses then they are going to need to start acting like them to survive.

They will have to close their pools because they will not be receiving rates relief! It will be far more practical for state schools who educate 93% of the population to build pools and to sub-let them for swimming lessons to the 7% of private school pupils when they require them.

Again, it doesn't take an overly analytical brain to realise that incentivizing private schools with tax and rates breaks to invest in expensive facilities for the privilege of very few pupils is a waste of public money.

[C4ME]

pheonix478 said:

Cheib said:

I don’t think the VAT rise will directly stop schools like Tonbridge opening their doors to local children but there will now be pressure on these schools to maximise how much they can earn from their facilities. Visiting kids may still get access to classrooms and theatre the swimming pool might be getting rented out.

I think you're right. Most of the people I've met at these schools are passionate about education and won't be as vindictive as those campaigning against them. I suspect opportunities to use educational facilities will remain but facilities that could otherwise be used by the paying public will dry up. If they're going to be treated like businesses then they are going to need to start acting like them to survive.

It would be more equitable if they were treated as true businesses and not charities. There are few private schools that will want to lose their charitable status though. That tells you something.

Edited by C4ME on Monday 8th July 21:15

[BikeBikeBIke]

dimots said:

incentivizing private schools with tax and rates breaks to invest in expensive facilities for the privilege of very few pupils is a waste of public money.

It doesn't cost the public a penny.

[dimots]

BikeBikeBIke said:

It doesn't cost the public a penny.

If rates relief and Vat exemption has no cost then how can removing it generate an extra £1.5 billion?

[Diderot]

C4ME said:

pheonix478 said:

Cheib said:

I don’t think the VAT rise will directly stop schools like Tonbridge opening their doors to local children but there will now be pressure on these schools to maximise how much they can earn from their facilities. Visiting kids may still get access to classrooms and theatre the swimming pool might be getting rented out.

I think you're right. Most of the people I've met at these schools are passionate about education and won't be as vindictive as those campaigning against them. I suspect opportunities to use educational facilities will remain but facilities that could otherwise be used by the paying public will dry up. If they're going to be treated like businesses then they are going to need to start acting like them to survive.

It would be more equitable if they were treated as true businesses and not charities. There are few private schools that will want to loose their charitable status though. That tells you something.

I think you mean lose rather than loose.

[C4ME]

Diderot said:

C4ME said:

pheonix478 said:

Cheib said:

I don’t think the VAT rise will directly stop schools like Tonbridge opening their doors to local children but there will now be pressure on these schools to maximise how much they can earn from their facilities. Visiting kids may still get access to classrooms and theatre the swimming pool might be getting rented out.

I think you're right. Most of the people I've met at these schools are passionate about education and won't be as vindictive as those campaigning against them. I suspect opportunities to use educational facilities will remain but facilities that could otherwise be used by the paying public will dry up. If they're going to be treated like businesses then they are going to need to start acting like them to survive.

It would be more equitable if they were treated as true businesses and not charities. There are few private schools that will want to loose their charitable status though. That tells you something.

I think you mean lose rather than loose.

Yes! I put it down to a dreadful education.

[pheonix478]

dimots said:

They will have to close their pools because they will not be receiving rates relief! It will be far more practical for state schools who educate 93% of the population to build pools and to sub-let them for swimming lessons to the 7% of private school pupils when they require them.

Again, it doesn't take an overly analytical brain to realise that incentivizing private schools with tax and rates breaks to invest in expensive facilities for the privilege of very few pupils is a waste of public money.

Again, please explain how it is a "waste of public money" any more than you not paying 70% income tax is a waste of public money? A tax that doesn't currently exist isn't a public expense. Do you actually imagine a single state school is going to build a swimming pool just because you succeed in taking them away from private schools?

[pheonix478]

C4ME said:

It would be more equitable if they were treated as true businesses and not charities. ...

How? Their only competition is not treated as a business. Equitable to who?

[BikeBikeBIke]

dimots said:

If rates relief and Vat exemption has no cost then how can removing it generate an extra £1.5 billion?

Well firstly, it won't because some schools will close and 20% of nothing is nothing. Plus we'll need to fund the education of all the kids who's parents couldn't find the extra 20%.

My owning a biro doesn't cost the state 75p. Yes the state could take it from me and get that 75p value but that doesn't make it a state subsidised biro.

The fact the state could take something but doesn't, doesn't make it state subsidised.

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Monday 8th July 21:29

[pheonix478]

dimots said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

It doesn't cost the public a penny.

If rates relief and Vat exemption has no cost then how can removing it generate an extra £1.5 billion?

By the same logic if increasing your tax rate to 70% raised an extra 20k how come you're not costing the public 20k right now. Your logic is inane.

[Cheburator mk2]

pheonix478 said:

Again, please explain how it is a "waste of public money" any more than you not paying 70% income tax is a waste of public money? A tax that doesn't currently exist isn't a public expense. Do you actually imagine a single state school is going to build a swimming pool just because you succeed in taking them away from private schools?

I love seeing closet commies like the original poster frothing at the mouth and saying but, but they have more than me, life is unfair! Hey dude, I suggest you voluntarily donate a bit more to HMRC every year. Clearly you are getting a subsidy, because, you know, you could be taxed at 60% or Hell!, why not make it a 100%. Actually, we should all work for ahem, nothing? Since the State can in theory make it that way, but praise the Lord it hasn’t … Yet…

It would have be nice if most of Labour’s supporters could actually experience life as it was in the old Eastern block for a day or two pre-1989. Let me tell you - it was fairly st, even if we had an amazing educational system and women were far more emancipated than in the West. There is nothing scarier for me than the Government saying “Let me help you!” Been there, done that… and escaped. By the looks of it, would have to do it again soon

Edited by Cheburator mk2 on Monday 8th July 21:27

[C4ME]

pheonix478 said:

C4ME said:

It would be more equitable if they were treated as true businesses and not charities. ...

How? Their only competition is not treated as a business. Equitable to who?

That is a fair challenge. I have previously said that I would prefer private schools to no longer be charities but to have separate legislation to define exactly how they operate (including any tax breaks) and their obligations. That better reflects my views. There are wider issues in the charities sector than just private schools IMO, but that is off topic.

Edited by C4ME on Monday 8th July 21:28

[ooid]

dimots said:

Again, it doesn't take an overly analytical brain....