@mutleyCAFC I am of the belief that every child/individual who is clever and has a willingness to learn will get the education that they desire/deserve - it may not be at school, it may be that they become self taught, it may be through spending too long on the internet, but if you are a potential rocket scientist then you will most likely have the drive and tenacity to make sure you don't end up working at McDonalds for your life. I also think that home environment is extremely important when it comes to education...if you are brought up in a house where education is not considered important, then chances are that you are going to think the same....if your parents are concerned, then they are going to do their best (even within that failing inner city comprehensive) to get you the help and support that you need... Or maybe I am just being naïve? This is all very close to home at the moment as my son starts secondary school in Sept 2016.
I do agree with you. I think the home and family are very important. In fact the most important thing without a doubt. The expectations set on a child and the support they are given are essential. But, past that point – the little bit of extra stretch that some of the most able kids need may not always be provided in their schools. My point is about fairness, but I realise our society is not fair. What I am not going to do is say it is a good thing to have public schools when it is not. I know I have no chance of getting rid of Public Schools, but I state they are not fair and have the potential to inhibit the development of others. Whether they do or not is a different matter, but if the establishment can opt out of services, they lose their stake in them. For some they will still be passionate, but for many, they won’t care too much. As long as their kids get the best!
Muttley, How do you think that the private schools (which are essentially just schools funded by the parents who also contribute to the state education) have the potential to inhibit the development of others?
I completely understand you not liking private schools and also agree that the advantages that they give are not fair but I can't see how they can inhibit the development of others.
The problem we have with comprehensive schools is that if they're any good, then the local house prices increase, and prevent social mobility. That's the great thing about grammar schools - If you're clever enough, then you can go, irrespective of how much money you have.
I was fortunate enough to attend a grammar school and a large proportion of the students there were not what could be considered wealthy. But they were able to learn in an environment that actually encouraged success, rather than having kids who aren't interested in learning and bully the weaker characters.
The improvements in London schools over the past few years has shown that if targeted improvements are made across the board then it's not just leafy areas that benefit. I think the catchment area/house price impact shows up most around primary schools, because they draw from very narrow/specific areas. Now, the problem areas are often recognised as out-of-the way coastal communities which are struggling
I also went to a grammar, but comprehensives with strong streaming provide a more flexible
Had a quick look at the stats. As of Jan 14 there were 7.7m pupils in state funded schools and 580,000 (7%) in independent schools. If we assume that the average cost per pupil year in a state school is £4,000 then the 'filthy rich' are saving the country £2.3 billion every year. It's the equivalent of another 20,000 classes of 29 pupils. I'd say if you took away charitable status and imposed VAT at 20% then the very wealthy would not be affected but lots of struggling parents would revert to the state sector and probably top up with additional tuition instead. On top of that, there would be absolutely no incentive for independent schools to offer grants, scholarships and bursaries, and those places would also be lost.
Pretty much all you need to know in a nutshell. All well and good that one is opposed to private school but they never have any plans or ideas about what to do when half a million pupils flood the state sector.
Nobody is saying VAT should be imposed - plenty of things are zero rated for VAT even if it's not a charity selling it.
@mutleyCAFC I am of the belief that every child/individual who is clever and has a willingness to learn will get the education that they desire/deserve - it may not be at school, it may be that they become self taught, it may be through spending too long on the internet, but if you are a potential rocket scientist then you will most likely have the drive and tenacity to make sure you don't end up working at McDonalds for your life. I also think that home environment is extremely important when it comes to education...if you are brought up in a house where education is not considered important, then chances are that you are going to think the same....if your parents are concerned, then they are going to do their best (even within that failing inner city comprehensive) to get you the help and support that you need... Or maybe I am just being naïve? This is all very close to home at the moment as my son starts secondary school in Sept 2016.
You are right about attitude. The only thing that affects pupil opportunity is attitude, and that doesn't cost anything.
Attitude of parents - if parents don't think education works, it didn't work for them, they pass on the attitude. Compare with the disadvantaged in third world countries where education is the path out of poverty and valued like nothing else.
Attitude of teachers, if teachers can't be arsed, nor will pupils. If teachers don't install the attitude that anything is achievable pupils will settle for what's on offer.
Much of the system we have educates in the hope that you will find a job as a result of the evidence of some bits of paper that you have been "educated". The system has failed a great part of society. Look at the number of unemployed youth and the vacancies for certain skilled professions, surely that is a clue. An apprenticeship or internship should be as valued as a University course, not denigrated as cheap labour for the rich bastards.
We are all different, and unfairness is a fact of life, get over it and do the best you can and you will get to where you should be.
The problem we have with comprehensive schools is that if they're any good, then the local house prices increase, and prevent social mobility. That's the great thing about grammar schools - If you're clever enough, then you can go, irrespective of how much money you have.
I was fortunate enough to attend a grammar school and a large proportion of the students there were not what could be considered wealthy. But they were able to learn in an environment that actually encouraged success, rather than having kids who aren't interested in learning and bully the weaker characters.
The improvements in London schools over the past few years has shown that if targeted improvements are made across the board then it's not just leafy areas that benefit. I think the catchment area/house price impact shows up most around primary schools, because they draw from very narrow/specific areas. Now, the problem areas are often recognised as out-of-the way coastal communities which are struggling
I also went to a grammar, but comprehensives with strong streaming provide a more flexible
Had a quick look at the stats. As of Jan 14 there were 7.7m pupils in state funded schools and 580,000 (7%) in independent schools. If we assume that the average cost per pupil year in a state school is £4,000 then the 'filthy rich' are saving the country £2.3 billion every year. It's the equivalent of another 20,000 classes of 29 pupils. I'd say if you took away charitable status and imposed VAT at 20% then the very wealthy would not be affected but lots of struggling parents would revert to the state sector and probably top up with additional tuition instead. On top of that, there would be absolutely no incentive for independent schools to offer grants, scholarships and bursaries, and those places would also be lost.
Pretty much all you need to know in a nutshell. All well and good that one is opposed to private school but they never have any plans or ideas about what to do when half a million pupils flood the state sector.
Nobody is saying VAT should be imposed - plenty of things are zero rated for VAT even if it's not a charity selling it.
That was just an example of what a government ideologically opposed to fee paying schools might consider in order to erode the perceived financial advantages of these institutions. The imposition of corporation tax would be an alternative, and doubtless also ultimately serve to increase the fees paid by parents.
FWIW I went to a grammar school (DGS), and if I could have been sure my daughter would receive a similar level of education to the free one that I got, I'd have been very happy to send her to one instead.
@mutleyCAFC I am of the belief that every child/individual who is clever and has a willingness to learn will get the education that they desire/deserve - it may not be at school, it may be that they become self taught, it may be through spending too long on the internet, but if you are a potential rocket scientist then you will most likely have the drive and tenacity to make sure you don't end up working at McDonalds for your life. I also think that home environment is extremely important when it comes to education...if you are brought up in a house where education is not considered important, then chances are that you are going to think the same....if your parents are concerned, then they are going to do their best (even within that failing inner city comprehensive) to get you the help and support that you need... Or maybe I am just being naïve? This is all very close to home at the moment as my son starts secondary school in Sept 2016.
I do agree with you. I think the home and family are very important. In fact the most important thing without a doubt. The expectations set on a child and the support they are given are essential. But, past that point – the little bit of extra stretch that some of the most able kids need may not always be provided in their schools. My point is about fairness, but I realise our society is not fair. What I am not going to do is say it is a good thing to have public schools when it is not. I know I have no chance of getting rid of Public Schools, but I state they are not fair and have the potential to inhibit the development of others. Whether they do or not is a different matter, but if the establishment can opt out of services, they lose their stake in them. For some they will still be passionate, but for many, they won’t care too much. As long as their kids get the best!
Muttley, How do you think that the private schools (which are essentially just schools funded by the parents who also contribute to the state education) have the potential to inhibit the development of others?
I completely understand you not liking private schools and also agree that the advantages that they give are not fair but I can't see how they can inhibit the development of others.
I suppose I can say this because my belief is that the establishment (the country’s elite) have a disproportionate amount of influence. Whether state education is good or bad has no impact on those that chose private education so there is the potential for state education to suffer because the people who run the country have no stake in it. Indeed, they need poorly educated people to work in their factories for minimum wage.
What is positive, and I said as much. Is that people like Michael Gove and David Cameron have opted to send their kids to state schools.
@mutleyCAFC I am of the belief that every child/individual who is clever and has a willingness to learn will get the education that they desire/deserve - it may not be at school, it may be that they become self taught, it may be through spending too long on the internet, but if you are a potential rocket scientist then you will most likely have the drive and tenacity to make sure you don't end up working at McDonalds for your life. I also think that home environment is extremely important when it comes to education...if you are brought up in a house where education is not considered important, then chances are that you are going to think the same....if your parents are concerned, then they are going to do their best (even within that failing inner city comprehensive) to get you the help and support that you need... Or maybe I am just being naïve? This is all very close to home at the moment as my son starts secondary school in Sept 2016.
You are right about attitude. The only thing that affects pupil opportunity is attitude, and that doesn't cost anything.
Attitude of parents - if parents don't think education works, it didn't work for them, they pass on the attitude. Compare with the disadvantaged in third world countries where education is the path out of poverty and valued like nothing else.
Attitude of teachers, if teachers can't be arsed, nor will pupils. If teachers don't install the attitude that anything is achievable pupils will settle for what's on offer.
Much of the system we have educates in the hope that you will find a job as a result of the evidence of some bits of paper that you have been "educated". The system has failed a great part of society. Look at the number of unemployed youth and the vacancies for certain skilled professions, surely that is a clue. An apprenticeship or internship should be as valued as a University course, not denigrated as cheap labour for the rich bastards.
We are all different, and unfairness is a fact of life, get over it and do the best you can and you will get to where you should be.
I won't get over unfairness but will do the best for my son within the system we have too. The state system doesn't solve the problems as it doesn't cater for apathetic parents that have little or no aspirations for their kids. It has been a major issue for us since our son was born that we would do what we could in terms of support/encouraging his development. I remember planning with my wife and sacrificing money (her taking a five year career break to ensure our son got the attention and development we thought essential for the best start in life). We set out for our son to be academically clever and good at sports too. Maybe we have been lucky, but he is on the National Gifted and Talented Register and is a useful footballer.
Some parents we know through his football are not interested in the academic side and were not bothered when their sons were sent to a school we would have fought against our son going to. This is natural but goes against making the education system better for similar reasons to public schools- so I am not claiming to be perfect. They are loving good parents but their views and influence is important IMO. There is a real issue in the state sector of how you get kids to be good students if the parents don't care. Maybe you need to spend more money educating the loving good parents on how they can help their kids do better academically. I think that is something the state sector has to crack. There has been lots of talk of coasting schools but if my son was in a coasting school and if Michael Goves kids were in coasting schools we would do our damnest to ensure the school stopped coasting. This is the point about public schools too. As it stands we focus on our kid's schools. The schools that do less well don't have many parents who care or have a stake in them doing better. The solution in my mind is not to through resources at the schools, but more the parents.
Let's be honest about this - the same number of children need to be educated whether they're in a private or state school, and in that context it could be very reasonably argued that independent [fee-paying] schools are alleviating the tax burden from all of us.
But actually it isn't really about their cost to the taxpayer whilst educating our children - it's really about their contribution to the wider economy - for example how they enable future tax payers to contribute to the economy - and when that's taken into account, they make a huge contribution. According to a report published last year by the Independent Schools Council, that's a direct tax benefit of £2.7bn per year, and a full net added tax value of £4.7bn.
And of course, independent schools spend their turnover to educate the kids, providing jobs and spending with suppliers in both local and national economies. The report estimates a positive added value to the economy of £11bn, or if you like 12% of the state education budget.
There's so much more to consider, but it really is such a narrow argument to say 'parents pay fees so schools shouldn't get tax relief'.
FWIW I went to a grammar school (DGS), and if I could have been sure my daughter would receive a similar level of education to the free one that I got, I'd have been very happy to send her to one instead.
A perfectly reasonable thought... but others here would say that's bad news because it means the state has to educate more people!
Some public schools advertise the tax benefits available to parents who sign up to "advanced fee schemes". This is where a very wealthy parent might pay for several years' fees at once. This allows the money to be invested by the public school, which, as a charity, does not pay the full amount of tax liable to - say - you or me, or the individual wealthy parent. The school then returns the investment gain to the parent.
So, in this way, the tax-payer is subsidising the wealthiest people who can afford to pay, for example, £150k up front, on a £30k per year fee.
Is this the smartest, fairest way to use tax-payers' money?
This doesn't sound, strictly speaking, legal - any earnings made under charitable pretences and taxed accordingly can't then be given out as non-charity related dividends. Is there any evidence this is remotely widespread? This is a completely separate debate as to whether fee-paying schools should enjoy charity status.
I don't know what "remotely widespread" means, but the chairman of the Independent Schools Council has said “quite a number of schools have been doing this for many, many years,"
Harrow School advertises their advance fee scheme on its website. Stowe School offers a scheme called Payment of School Fees in Advance, whereby parents pay into a fund in return for a guaranteed rate of interest, and a discounted school fee - the Trust has one Trustee: Stowe School Ltd.
Radley College invests £17m a year from parents avoiding tax by using the school's charitable status as a vehicle for earning "tax-free" investment returns. One in six pupils has his fees paid in this way.
To be clear, how the system works is that a parent puts in a lump sum into the scheme. Instead of investing it himself (and paying interest on the earnings), the school invests it. And, because it doesn't pay tax (it's a charity: hooray!), the investment is returned, tax-free, in the form of a discount against "x" number of years' fees. So you, me and everyone else who pays tax in the UK subsidises these people who use the "charitable" status of a school to reduce their own tax contributions.
The question of whether private schools are beneficial to society is complex, but let me try to respond only to the question posed by the OP: "Is it fair that we - as tax-payers - subsidise the education of those who can afford school fees, to the tune of about £700m a year?". (This figure subsequently amended to £700m over five years.)
As many posters have said, the existence of private schools reduces the cost to the state of having to provide education for these pupils. This saving is almost certainly much greater than the loss of tax revenue. Around 7% of pupils are at private schools. I don't know how many children are at school at any time, but let's say 10% of the total population are - say 5 million. This gives us 7% of 5 million = 350,000. I believe the cost of state education is estimated to be about one third of the fees for day pupils at private schools - say, £4000 per year. Therefore the saving to the state from not having to provide for the 350,000 is around £1.4bn. If these figures are even roughly correct, we don't need to worry about tax payers losing out.
Good post @KHA thank you for taking the time to answer the original question.
I don't agree with your standpoint, however! I am not suggesting that public schools are banned. And I am very sure that, if they were to be taxed in a more "normalised" way, there would still be significant numbers of pupils attending British public schools. VAT would (probably) be returned to overseas pupils; tax would only be paid on the profit made by schools. In your scenario, you're painting a picture whereby, with the addition of taxation, every single Public School ceases trading immediately. This is unlikely!
If a Chinese person sends his son to England where he gets a taxi from the airport to a hotel, VAT is paid on the taxi and the hotel; and the taxi company/individual and the hotel are taxed on their profit. Why should a school be treated any differently, if the Chinese pupil is sent to a British, Public boarding school?
Some public schools advertise the tax benefits available to parents who sign up to "advanced fee schemes". This is where a very wealthy parent might pay for several years' fees at once. This allows the money to be invested by the public school, which, as a charity, does not pay the full amount of tax liable to - say - you or me, or the individual wealthy parent. The school then returns the investment gain to the parent.
So, in this way, the tax-payer is subsidising the wealthiest people who can afford to pay, for example, £150k up front, on a £30k per year fee.
Is this the smartest, fairest way to use tax-payers' money?
This doesn't sound, strictly speaking, legal - any earnings made under charitable pretences and taxed accordingly can't then be given out as non-charity related dividends. Is there any evidence this is remotely widespread? This is a completely separate debate as to whether fee-paying schools should enjoy charity status.
I don't know what "remotely widespread" means, but the chairman of the Independent Schools Council has said “quite a number of schools have been doing this for many, many years,"
Harrow School advertises their advance fee scheme on its website. Stowe School offers a scheme called Payment of School Fees in Advance, whereby parents pay into a fund in return for a guaranteed rate of interest, and a discounted school fee - the Trust has one Trustee: Stowe School Ltd.
Radley College invests £17m a year from parents avoiding tax by using the school's charitable status as a vehicle for earning "tax-free" investment returns. One in six pupils has his fees paid in this way.
To be clear, how the system works is that a parent puts in a lump sum into the scheme. Instead of investing it himself (and paying interest on the earnings), the school invests it. And, because it doesn't pay tax (it's a charity: hooray!), the investment is returned, tax-free, in the form of a discount against "x" number of years' fees. So you, me and everyone else who pays tax in the UK subsidises these people who use the "charitable" status of a school to reduce their own tax contributions.
I'd like to see how one of this funds actually works. It sounds like a fantastic scam and I am astonished that this kind of investment vehicle actually exists. Have you got a link to any technical data on this and I used to work for a financial planner and something like this does seem a bit too good to be true, the way you're currently describing it.
Some public schools advertise the tax benefits available to parents who sign up to "advanced fee schemes". This is where a very wealthy parent might pay for several years' fees at once. This allows the money to be invested by the public school, which, as a charity, does not pay the full amount of tax liable to - say - you or me, or the individual wealthy parent. The school then returns the investment gain to the parent.
So, in this way, the tax-payer is subsidising the wealthiest people who can afford to pay, for example, £150k up front, on a £30k per year fee.
Is this the smartest, fairest way to use tax-payers' money?
This doesn't sound, strictly speaking, legal - any earnings made under charitable pretences and taxed accordingly can't then be given out as non-charity related dividends. Is there any evidence this is remotely widespread? This is a completely separate debate as to whether fee-paying schools should enjoy charity status.
I don't know what "remotely widespread" means, but the chairman of the Independent Schools Council has said “quite a number of schools have been doing this for many, many years,"
Harrow School advertises their advance fee scheme on its website. Stowe School offers a scheme called Payment of School Fees in Advance, whereby parents pay into a fund in return for a guaranteed rate of interest, and a discounted school fee - the Trust has one Trustee: Stowe School Ltd.
Radley College invests £17m a year from parents avoiding tax by using the school's charitable status as a vehicle for earning "tax-free" investment returns. One in six pupils has his fees paid in this way.
To be clear, how the system works is that a parent puts in a lump sum into the scheme. Instead of investing it himself (and paying interest on the earnings), the school invests it. And, because it doesn't pay tax (it's a charity: hooray!), the investment is returned, tax-free, in the form of a discount against "x" number of years' fees. So you, me and everyone else who pays tax in the UK subsidises these people who use the "charitable" status of a school to reduce their own tax contributions.
I'd like to see how one of this funds actually works. It sounds like a fantastic scam and I am astonished that this kind of investment vehicle actually exists. Have you got a link to any technical data on this and I used to work for a financial planner and something like this does seem a bit too good to be true, the way you're currently describing it.
I love it when people say "I haven't got any kids, I resent paying taxes for a service I don't use". Tell you what, if I promise never to shit at home can I get my water rates reduced? :-)
IMHO everyone benefits from a state system which is of the highest quality possible. The nation as a whole benefits from a well educated workforce. Every kid is entitled to a decent education, but we must also accept that not all people (kids, adults) are the same. Some kids want to go to uni, others would rather do something less academic. It's all about giving them opportunities, not limiting their opportunities because they happen to live in a poor household or in the wrong catchment area.
Some public schools advertise the tax benefits available to parents who sign up to "advanced fee schemes". This is where a very wealthy parent might pay for several years' fees at once. This allows the money to be invested by the public school, which, as a charity, does not pay the full amount of tax liable to - say - you or me, or the individual wealthy parent. The school then returns the investment gain to the parent.
So, in this way, the tax-payer is subsidising the wealthiest people who can afford to pay, for example, £150k up front, on a £30k per year fee.
Is this the smartest, fairest way to use tax-payers' money?
This doesn't sound, strictly speaking, legal - any earnings made under charitable pretences and taxed accordingly can't then be given out as non-charity related dividends. Is there any evidence this is remotely widespread? This is a completely separate debate as to whether fee-paying schools should enjoy charity status.
I don't know what "remotely widespread" means, but the chairman of the Independent Schools Council has said “quite a number of schools have been doing this for many, many years,"
Harrow School advertises their advance fee scheme on its website. Stowe School offers a scheme called Payment of School Fees in Advance, whereby parents pay into a fund in return for a guaranteed rate of interest, and a discounted school fee - the Trust has one Trustee: Stowe School Ltd.
Radley College invests £17m a year from parents avoiding tax by using the school's charitable status as a vehicle for earning "tax-free" investment returns. One in six pupils has his fees paid in this way.
To be clear, how the system works is that a parent puts in a lump sum into the scheme. Instead of investing it himself (and paying interest on the earnings), the school invests it. And, because it doesn't pay tax (it's a charity: hooray!), the investment is returned, tax-free, in the form of a discount against "x" number of years' fees. So you, me and everyone else who pays tax in the UK subsidises these people who use the "charitable" status of a school to reduce their own tax contributions.
I'd like to see how one of this funds actually works. It sounds like a fantastic scam and I am astonished that this kind of investment vehicle actually exists. Have you got a link to any technical data on this and I used to work for a financial planner and something like this does seem a bit too good to be true, the way you're currently describing it.
Out of interest how does this differ from say BT offering you a discount if you pay twelve months' line rental upfront? I think the discount is about 10%.
Or Waitrose offering three for two deals?
Committing upfront always comes with a discount.
Hell, look at our season tickets or the five year season tickets. How does the tax free discount on a five year season ticket differ from paying for five years school fees upfront?
Incidentally you can add King's School Rochester to that list of schools that offer a discount for paying upfront.
Some public schools advertise the tax benefits available to parents who sign up to "advanced fee schemes". This is where a very wealthy parent might pay for several years' fees at once. This allows the money to be invested by the public school, which, as a charity, does not pay the full amount of tax liable to - say - you or me, or the individual wealthy parent. The school then returns the investment gain to the parent.
So, in this way, the tax-payer is subsidising the wealthiest people who can afford to pay, for example, £150k up front, on a £30k per year fee.
Is this the smartest, fairest way to use tax-payers' money?
This doesn't sound, strictly speaking, legal - any earnings made under charitable pretences and taxed accordingly can't then be given out as non-charity related dividends. Is there any evidence this is remotely widespread? This is a completely separate debate as to whether fee-paying schools should enjoy charity status.
I don't know what "remotely widespread" means, but the chairman of the Independent Schools Council has said “quite a number of schools have been doing this for many, many years,"
Harrow School advertises their advance fee scheme on its website. Stowe School offers a scheme called Payment of School Fees in Advance, whereby parents pay into a fund in return for a guaranteed rate of interest, and a discounted school fee - the Trust has one Trustee: Stowe School Ltd.
Radley College invests £17m a year from parents avoiding tax by using the school's charitable status as a vehicle for earning "tax-free" investment returns. One in six pupils has his fees paid in this way.
To be clear, how the system works is that a parent puts in a lump sum into the scheme. Instead of investing it himself (and paying interest on the earnings), the school invests it. And, because it doesn't pay tax (it's a charity: hooray!), the investment is returned, tax-free, in the form of a discount against "x" number of years' fees. So you, me and everyone else who pays tax in the UK subsidises these people who use the "charitable" status of a school to reduce their own tax contributions.
I'd like to see how one of this funds actually works. It sounds like a fantastic scam and I am astonished that this kind of investment vehicle actually exists. Have you got a link to any technical data on this and I used to work for a financial planner and something like this does seem a bit too good to be true, the way you're currently describing it.
Out of interest how does this differ from say BT offering you a discount if you pay twelve months' line rental upfront? I think the discount is about 10%.
Or Waitrose offering three for two deals?
Committing upfront always comes with a discount.
Hell, look at our season tickets or the five year season tickets. How does the tax free discount on a five year season ticket differ from paying for five years school fees upfront?
Incidentally you can add King's School Rochester to that list of schools that offer a discount for paying upfront.
BT and Waitrose pay tax. They might all offer discounts, but the schools go further: they provide an investment return, tax-free.
The Charlton season tickets isn't "tax free", it's an "interest free" loan.
Absolutely nothing wrong with offering a discount up-front. But linking a pre-paid investment, returning an interest, and having that interest tax-free, based on the "charitable" status of the school is a long way from a pay-upfront BT deal or a three-for-two Waitrose offer.
The tax relief for the charitable fund on gilts yielding 2.5% is diddlysquat and the parent's discount will presumably be less than the 2.5% earned for the fund. So any rich bastard who has 5 years worth of fees to pay up front and is happy to commit to an investment for a return of 2.5% didn't get rich by putting his gonads on the line. He probably would have invested in the market and easily got 10% last year after paying higher rate tax.
This scheme is for the benefit of the charitable fund, rather than the parents, however it might be sold and I can't see many takers to be honest, so tax payers can sleep easily tonight.
Some public schools advertise the tax benefits available to parents who sign up to "advanced fee schemes". This is where a very wealthy parent might pay for several years' fees at once. This allows the money to be invested by the public school, which, as a charity, does not pay the full amount of tax liable to - say - you or me, or the individual wealthy parent. The school then returns the investment gain to the parent.
So, in this way, the tax-payer is subsidising the wealthiest people who can afford to pay, for example, £150k up front, on a £30k per year fee.
Is this the smartest, fairest way to use tax-payers' money?
This doesn't sound, strictly speaking, legal - any earnings made under charitable pretences and taxed accordingly can't then be given out as non-charity related dividends. Is there any evidence this is remotely widespread? This is a completely separate debate as to whether fee-paying schools should enjoy charity status.
I don't know what "remotely widespread" means, but the chairman of the Independent Schools Council has said “quite a number of schools have been doing this for many, many years,"
Harrow School advertises their advance fee scheme on its website. Stowe School offers a scheme called Payment of School Fees in Advance, whereby parents pay into a fund in return for a guaranteed rate of interest, and a discounted school fee - the Trust has one Trustee: Stowe School Ltd.
Radley College invests £17m a year from parents avoiding tax by using the school's charitable status as a vehicle for earning "tax-free" investment returns. One in six pupils has his fees paid in this way.
To be clear, how the system works is that a parent puts in a lump sum into the scheme. Instead of investing it himself (and paying interest on the earnings), the school invests it. And, because it doesn't pay tax (it's a charity: hooray!), the investment is returned, tax-free, in the form of a discount against "x" number of years' fees. So you, me and everyone else who pays tax in the UK subsidises these people who use the "charitable" status of a school to reduce their own tax contributions.
I'd like to see how one of this funds actually works. It sounds like a fantastic scam and I am astonished that this kind of investment vehicle actually exists. Have you got a link to any technical data on this and I used to work for a financial planner and something like this does seem a bit too good to be true, the way you're currently describing it.
Out of interest how does this differ from say BT offering you a discount if you pay twelve months' line rental upfront? I think the discount is about 10%.
Or Waitrose offering three for two deals?
Committing upfront always comes with a discount.
Hell, look at our season tickets or the five year season tickets. How does the tax free discount on a five year season ticket differ from paying for five years school fees upfront?
Incidentally you can add King's School Rochester to that list of schools that offer a discount for paying upfront.
BT and Waitrose pay tax. They might all offer discounts, but the schools go further: they provide an investment return, tax-free.
The Charlton season tickets isn't "tax free", it's an "interest free" loan.
Absolutely nothing wrong with offering a discount up-front. But linking a pre-paid investment, returning an interest, and having that interest tax-free, based on the "charitable" status of the school is a long way from a pay-upfront BT deal or a three-for-two Waitrose offer.
Having looked into this, I don't particularly have a problem with it.
This scheme doesn't appear to be what you're describing, which would be the school acts as a nominee for the investments but passes profits onto the beneficiaries i.e. the parents.
What it actually appears to be in that in exchange for the parents paying all the fees up-front - and so sacrificing the ability to invest that money themselves, they guarantee a lower cost to themselves for school fees for their child. This is, as kings hill addick has correctly pointed out, similar to other contracts where it is cheaper in the long run to pay up front than to pay on a monthly or quarterly basis.
Now, the tax-free bit. All fees paid this way go into an investment fund for the purpose of accruing interest and capital gains tax-free. The reason why they do this, rather than invest the money straight away into the school, is for two reasons mainly:
1) In the event of the child leaving the school or dying or similar, the school is contractually obliged to return any unused fees to the parents, therefore they have to be ringfenced. Likewise if the school goes bust or has liquidity issues, it has a fund to ensure staff are paid, the school can keep running or, in the worst case scenario, the school has to close but the parents still receive the unused funds back, as per the contract.
2) The school may not need to spend 7 years worth of fees straight away and can put it to better use to ensure there is a steady flow of income from its tax-free status so it can continue to offer scholarships or other benefits to the community
In order to actually encourage parents to do this, they have to offer a discount. It benefits all parties involved: the parents, who will end up paying less for school in the long run; the school, who are able to be more financially secure; and the community, who, as a result of the school enjoying an extra revenue scheme, will have scholarships, the use of the facilities and other benefits of having a fee-paying school in the area.
Some public schools advertise the tax benefits available to parents who sign up to "advanced fee schemes". This is where a very wealthy parent might pay for several years' fees at once. This allows the money to be invested by the public school, which, as a charity, does not pay the full amount of tax liable to - say - you or me, or the individual wealthy parent. The school then returns the investment gain to the parent.
So, in this way, the tax-payer is subsidising the wealthiest people who can afford to pay, for example, £150k up front, on a £30k per year fee.
Is this the smartest, fairest way to use tax-payers' money?
This doesn't sound, strictly speaking, legal - any earnings made under charitable pretences and taxed accordingly can't then be given out as non-charity related dividends. Is there any evidence this is remotely widespread? This is a completely separate debate as to whether fee-paying schools should enjoy charity status.
I don't know what "remotely widespread" means, but the chairman of the Independent Schools Council has said “quite a number of schools have been doing this for many, many years,"
Harrow School advertises their advance fee scheme on its website. Stowe School offers a scheme called Payment of School Fees in Advance, whereby parents pay into a fund in return for a guaranteed rate of interest, and a discounted school fee - the Trust has one Trustee: Stowe School Ltd.
Radley College invests £17m a year from parents avoiding tax by using the school's charitable status as a vehicle for earning "tax-free" investment returns. One in six pupils has his fees paid in this way.
To be clear, how the system works is that a parent puts in a lump sum into the scheme. Instead of investing it himself (and paying interest on the earnings), the school invests it. And, because it doesn't pay tax (it's a charity: hooray!), the investment is returned, tax-free, in the form of a discount against "x" number of years' fees. So you, me and everyone else who pays tax in the UK subsidises these people who use the "charitable" status of a school to reduce their own tax contributions.
I'd like to see how one of this funds actually works. It sounds like a fantastic scam and I am astonished that this kind of investment vehicle actually exists. Have you got a link to any technical data on this and I used to work for a financial planner and something like this does seem a bit too good to be true, the way you're currently describing it.
Out of interest how does this differ from say BT offering you a discount if you pay twelve months' line rental upfront? I think the discount is about 10%.
Or Waitrose offering three for two deals?
Committing upfront always comes with a discount.
Hell, look at our season tickets or the five year season tickets. How does the tax free discount on a five year season ticket differ from paying for five years school fees upfront?
Incidentally you can add King's School Rochester to that list of schools that offer a discount for paying upfront.
BT and Waitrose pay tax. They might all offer discounts, but the schools go further: they provide an investment return, tax-free.
The Charlton season tickets isn't "tax free", it's an "interest free" loan.
Absolutely nothing wrong with offering a discount up-front. But linking a pre-paid investment, returning an interest, and having that interest tax-free, based on the "charitable" status of the school is a long way from a pay-upfront BT deal or a three-for-two Waitrose offer.
It sounds as though it is precisely what you think it's a long way from, I.e. a form of discount for advance payment. Can the parents profit from the arrangement or is their cost fixed?
Some public schools advertise the tax benefits available to parents who sign up to "advanced fee schemes". This is where a very wealthy parent might pay for several years' fees at once. This allows the money to be invested by the public school, which, as a charity, does not pay the full amount of tax liable to - say - you or me, or the individual wealthy parent. The school then returns the investment gain to the parent.
So, in this way, the tax-payer is subsidising the wealthiest people who can afford to pay, for example, £150k up front, on a £30k per year fee.
Is this the smartest, fairest way to use tax-payers' money?
This doesn't sound, strictly speaking, legal - any earnings made under charitable pretences and taxed accordingly can't then be given out as non-charity related dividends. Is there any evidence this is remotely widespread? This is a completely separate debate as to whether fee-paying schools should enjoy charity status.
I don't know what "remotely widespread" means, but the chairman of the Independent Schools Council has said “quite a number of schools have been doing this for many, many years,"
Harrow School advertises their advance fee scheme on its website. Stowe School offers a scheme called Payment of School Fees in Advance, whereby parents pay into a fund in return for a guaranteed rate of interest, and a discounted school fee - the Trust has one Trustee: Stowe School Ltd.
Radley College invests £17m a year from parents avoiding tax by using the school's charitable status as a vehicle for earning "tax-free" investment returns. One in six pupils has his fees paid in this way.
To be clear, how the system works is that a parent puts in a lump sum into the scheme. Instead of investing it himself (and paying interest on the earnings), the school invests it. And, because it doesn't pay tax (it's a charity: hooray!), the investment is returned, tax-free, in the form of a discount against "x" number of years' fees. So you, me and everyone else who pays tax in the UK subsidises these people who use the "charitable" status of a school to reduce their own tax contributions.
I'd like to see how one of this funds actually works. It sounds like a fantastic scam and I am astonished that this kind of investment vehicle actually exists. Have you got a link to any technical data on this and I used to work for a financial planner and something like this does seem a bit too good to be true, the way you're currently describing it.
Out of interest how does this differ from say BT offering you a discount if you pay twelve months' line rental upfront? I think the discount is about 10%.
Or Waitrose offering three for two deals?
Committing upfront always comes with a discount.
Hell, look at our season tickets or the five year season tickets. How does the tax free discount on a five year season ticket differ from paying for five years school fees upfront?
Incidentally you can add King's School Rochester to that list of schools that offer a discount for paying upfront.
BT and Waitrose pay tax. They might all offer discounts, but the schools go further: they provide an investment return, tax-free.
The Charlton season tickets isn't "tax free", it's an "interest free" loan.
Absolutely nothing wrong with offering a discount up-front. But linking a pre-paid investment, returning an interest, and having that interest tax-free, based on the "charitable" status of the school is a long way from a pay-upfront BT deal or a three-for-two Waitrose offer.
It sounds as though it is precisely what you think it's a long way from, I.e. a form of discount for advance payment. Can the parents profit from the arrangement or is their cost fixed?
The only way the parents profit is that they're protected from future rises in fees, they will enjoy a discounted rate and possibly other fees that they would need to pay would also be reduced, although this may vary from school to school. I could not see any evidence to suggest that the schools pass any money or gains to the parents once their fees have been deposited.
Storm in a teacup to be honest. I'd get angrier about the union Pilgrims that piss away much more of the taxpayers' money if I were you, if you want to start talking about what is and isn't fair to be spending taxpayers' money on.
Some public schools advertise the tax benefits available to parents who sign up to "advanced fee schemes". This is where a very wealthy parent might pay for several years' fees at once. This allows the money to be invested by the public school, which, as a charity, does not pay the full amount of tax liable to - say - you or me, or the individual wealthy parent. The school then returns the investment gain to the parent.
So, in this way, the tax-payer is subsidising the wealthiest people who can afford to pay, for example, £150k up front, on a £30k per year fee.
Is this the smartest, fairest way to use tax-payers' money?
This doesn't sound, strictly speaking, legal - any earnings made under charitable pretences and taxed accordingly can't then be given out as non-charity related dividends. Is there any evidence this is remotely widespread? This is a completely separate debate as to whether fee-paying schools should enjoy charity status.
I don't know what "remotely widespread" means, but the chairman of the Independent Schools Council has said “quite a number of schools have been doing this for many, many years,"
Harrow School advertises their advance fee scheme on its website. Stowe School offers a scheme called Payment of School Fees in Advance, whereby parents pay into a fund in return for a guaranteed rate of interest, and a discounted school fee - the Trust has one Trustee: Stowe School Ltd.
Radley College invests £17m a year from parents avoiding tax by using the school's charitable status as a vehicle for earning "tax-free" investment returns. One in six pupils has his fees paid in this way.
To be clear, how the system works is that a parent puts in a lump sum into the scheme. Instead of investing it himself (and paying interest on the earnings), the school invests it. And, because it doesn't pay tax (it's a charity: hooray!), the investment is returned, tax-free, in the form of a discount against "x" number of years' fees. So you, me and everyone else who pays tax in the UK subsidises these people who use the "charitable" status of a school to reduce their own tax contributions.
I'd like to see how one of this funds actually works. It sounds like a fantastic scam and I am astonished that this kind of investment vehicle actually exists. Have you got a link to any technical data on this and I used to work for a financial planner and something like this does seem a bit too good to be true, the way you're currently describing it.
Out of interest how does this differ from say BT offering you a discount if you pay twelve months' line rental upfront? I think the discount is about 10%.
Or Waitrose offering three for two deals?
Committing upfront always comes with a discount.
Hell, look at our season tickets or the five year season tickets. How does the tax free discount on a five year season ticket differ from paying for five years school fees upfront?
Incidentally you can add King's School Rochester to that list of schools that offer a discount for paying upfront.
BT and Waitrose pay tax. They might all offer discounts, but the schools go further: they provide an investment return, tax-free.
The Charlton season tickets isn't "tax free", it's an "interest free" loan.
Absolutely nothing wrong with offering a discount up-front. But linking a pre-paid investment, returning an interest, and having that interest tax-free, based on the "charitable" status of the school is a long way from a pay-upfront BT deal or a three-for-two Waitrose offer.
It sounds as though it is precisely what you think it's a long way from, I.e. a form of discount for advance payment. Can the parents profit from the arrangement or is their cost fixed?
You see, this is why Charlton Life is so good. You occasionally come across someone who actually knows what they're talking about!
The idea of Advance Fee Payments attracting zero tax and zero CGT may well be perfectly legal. And I haven't for one minute suggested that it mightn't be. But it doesn't seem equitable, in my opinion.
Except the parents aren't actually reducing their tax bills. Parents still have to earn money to pay those fees and presumably their incomes are taxed normally regardless of what they spend their money on. What a complete non-story.
I love it when people say "I haven't got any kids, I resent paying taxes for a service I don't use". Tell you what, if I promise never to shit at home can I get my water rates reduced? :-)
Well, yes you can - you get a water meter fitted and pay for what you use! Which, to save valuable resources in an overpopulated world is what everyone should be doing anyway.
I love it when people say "I haven't got any kids, I resent paying taxes for a service I don't use". Tell you what, if I promise never to shit at home can I get my water rates reduced? :-)
IMHO everyone benefits from a state system which is of the highest quality possible. The nation as a whole benefits from a well educated workforce. Every kid is entitled to a decent education, but we must also accept that not all people (kids, adults) are the same. Some kids want to go to uni, others would rather do something less academic. It's all about giving them opportunities, not limiting their opportunities because they happen to live in a poor household or in the wrong catchment area.
Do you believe that given the same circumstances every child would achieve the same academically or that some are more likely to excel than others ?
Could we all have been Stephen Hawking if only we had the same education ?
I love it when people say "I haven't got any kids, I resent paying taxes for a service I don't use". Tell you what, if I promise never to shit at home can I get my water rates reduced? :-)
IMHO everyone benefits from a state system which is of the highest quality possible. The nation as a whole benefits from a well educated workforce. Every kid is entitled to a decent education, but we must also accept that not all people (kids, adults) are the same. Some kids want to go to uni, others would rather do something less academic. It's all about giving them opportunities, not limiting their opportunities because they happen to live in a poor household or in the wrong catchment area.
Do you believe that given the same circumstances every child would achieve the same academically or that some are more likely to excel than others ?
Could we all have been Stephen Hawking if only we had the same education ?
I don't.
Do you believe that, by studying in an environment devoid of talented peers, an under-achieving child will excel?
I love it when people say "I haven't got any kids, I resent paying taxes for a service I don't use". Tell you what, if I promise never to shit at home can I get my water rates reduced? :-)
IMHO everyone benefits from a state system which is of the highest quality possible. The nation as a whole benefits from a well educated workforce. Every kid is entitled to a decent education, but we must also accept that not all people (kids, adults) are the same. Some kids want to go to uni, others would rather do something less academic. It's all about giving them opportunities, not limiting their opportunities because they happen to live in a poor household or in the wrong catchment area.
Do you believe that given the same circumstances every child would achieve the same academically or that some are more likely to excel than others ?
Could we all have been Stephen Hawking if only we had the same education ?
I don't.
Do you believe that, by studying in an environment devoid of talented peers, an under-achieving child will excel?
Would an exceptionally academic child fulfil his / her full potential if he / she had to wait for others to catch up every lesson ?
If there are educational resources made available for those perhaps educationally sub standard to improve should there not be a mechanism for those perhaps educationally above standard to excel ?
The private / public school system isn't going anywhere so best live with it - parents make choices that they think will be the best for their children and if that is a private education, violin lessons, a summer course at Chelsea FC or a Big Mac then what will be will be.
I love it when people say "I haven't got any kids, I resent paying taxes for a service I don't use". Tell you what, if I promise never to shit at home can I get my water rates reduced? :-)
IMHO everyone benefits from a state system which is of the highest quality possible. The nation as a whole benefits from a well educated workforce. Every kid is entitled to a decent education, but we must also accept that not all people (kids, adults) are the same. Some kids want to go to uni, others would rather do something less academic. It's all about giving them opportunities, not limiting their opportunities because they happen to live in a poor household or in the wrong catchment area.
Do you believe that given the same circumstances every child would achieve the same academically or that some are more likely to excel than others ?
Could we all have been Stephen Hawking if only we had the same education ?
I don't.
Do you believe that, by studying in an environment devoid of talented peers, an under-achieving child will excel?
Would an exceptionally academic child fulfil his / her full potential if he / she had to wait for others to catch up every lesson ?
If there are educational resources made available for those perhaps educationally sub standard to improve should there not be a mechanism for those perhaps educationally above standard to excel ?
The private / public school system isn't going anywhere so best live with it - parents make choices that they think will be the best for their children and if that is a private education, violin lessons, a summer course at Chelsea FC or a Big Mac then what will be will be.
I totally agree that a kind of duopoly system of privately-funded schools and state-funded schools will persist. I don't think that will change; and I don't think it should change. There is a place for privately-funded schooling for those that are in the position to afford it and want it. I don't care how much it costs parents; I don't have an objection to those fees being paid by parents, businesses, overseas governments and so on; but I think the tax-breaks provided for privately-funded schools are iniquitous.
My preference - for what it's worth - is for all state-funded schools to provide the best possible educational framework and development opportunities for every child; and for privately-funded schools to contribute a more equitable contribution.
Comments
I completely understand you not liking private schools and also agree that the advantages that they give are not fair but I can't see how they can inhibit the development of others.
I also went to a grammar, but comprehensives with strong streaming provide a more flexible Nobody is saying VAT should be imposed - plenty of things are zero rated for VAT even if it's not a charity selling it.
Attitude of parents - if parents don't think education works, it didn't work for them, they pass on the attitude. Compare with the disadvantaged in third world countries where education is the path out of poverty and valued like nothing else.
Attitude of teachers, if teachers can't be arsed, nor will pupils. If teachers don't install the attitude that anything is achievable pupils will settle for what's on offer.
Much of the system we have educates in the hope that you will find a job as a result of the evidence of some bits of paper that you have been "educated". The system has failed a great part of society. Look at the number of unemployed youth and the vacancies for certain skilled professions, surely that is a clue. An apprenticeship or internship should be as valued as a University course, not denigrated as cheap labour for the rich bastards.
We are all different, and unfairness is a fact of life, get over it and do the best you can and you will get to where you should be.
What is positive, and I said as much. Is that people like Michael Gove and David Cameron have opted to send their kids to state schools.
Some parents we know through his football are not interested in the academic side and were not bothered when their sons were sent to a school we would have fought against our son going to. This is natural but goes against making the education system better for similar reasons to public schools- so I am not claiming to be perfect. They are loving good parents but their views and influence is important IMO. There is a real issue in the state sector of how you get kids to be good students if the parents don't care. Maybe you need to spend more money educating the loving good parents on how they can help their kids do better academically. I think that is something the state sector has to crack. There has been lots of talk of coasting schools but if my son was in a coasting school and if Michael Goves kids were in coasting schools we would do our damnest to ensure the school stopped coasting. This is the point about public schools too. As it stands we focus on our kid's schools. The schools that do less well don't have many parents who care or have a stake in them doing better. The solution in my mind is not to through resources at the schools, but more the parents.
But actually it isn't really about their cost to the taxpayer whilst educating our children - it's really about their contribution to the wider economy - for example how they enable future tax payers to contribute to the economy - and when that's taken into account, they make a huge contribution. According to a report published last year by the Independent Schools Council, that's a direct tax benefit of £2.7bn per year, and a full net added tax value of £4.7bn.
And of course, independent schools spend their turnover to educate the kids, providing jobs and spending with suppliers in both local and national economies. The report estimates a positive added value to the economy of £11bn, or if you like 12% of the state education budget.
There's so much more to consider, but it really is such a narrow argument to say 'parents pay fees so schools shouldn't get tax relief'.
(I went to a state school incidentally).
Harrow School advertises their advance fee scheme on its website. Stowe School offers a scheme called Payment of School Fees in Advance, whereby parents pay into a fund in return for a guaranteed rate of interest, and a discounted school fee - the Trust has one Trustee: Stowe School Ltd.
Radley College invests £17m a year from parents avoiding tax by using the school's charitable status as a vehicle for earning "tax-free" investment returns. One in six pupils has his fees paid in this way.
To be clear, how the system works is that a parent puts in a lump sum into the scheme. Instead of investing it himself (and paying interest on the earnings), the school invests it. And, because it doesn't pay tax (it's a charity: hooray!), the investment is returned, tax-free, in the form of a discount against "x" number of years' fees. So you, me and everyone else who pays tax in the UK subsidises these people who use the "charitable" status of a school to reduce their own tax contributions.
I don't agree with your standpoint, however! I am not suggesting that public schools are banned. And I am very sure that, if they were to be taxed in a more "normalised" way, there would still be significant numbers of pupils attending British public schools. VAT would (probably) be returned to overseas pupils; tax would only be paid on the profit made by schools. In your scenario, you're painting a picture whereby, with the addition of taxation, every single Public School ceases trading immediately. This is unlikely!
If a Chinese person sends his son to England where he gets a taxi from the airport to a hotel, VAT is paid on the taxi and the hotel; and the taxi company/individual and the hotel are taxed on their profit. Why should a school be treated any differently, if the Chinese pupil is sent to a British, Public boarding school?
IMHO everyone benefits from a state system which is of the highest quality possible. The nation as a whole benefits from a well educated workforce. Every kid is entitled to a decent education, but we must also accept that not all people (kids, adults) are the same. Some kids want to go to uni, others would rather do something less academic. It's all about giving them opportunities, not limiting their opportunities because they happen to live in a poor household or in the wrong catchment area.
Or Waitrose offering three for two deals?
Committing upfront always comes with a discount.
Hell, look at our season tickets or the five year season tickets. How does the tax free discount on a five year season ticket differ from paying for five years school fees upfront?
Incidentally you can add King's School Rochester to that list of schools that offer a discount for paying upfront.
The Charlton season tickets isn't "tax free", it's an "interest free" loan.
Absolutely nothing wrong with offering a discount up-front. But linking a pre-paid investment, returning an interest, and having that interest tax-free, based on the "charitable" status of the school is a long way from a pay-upfront BT deal or a three-for-two Waitrose offer.
The tax relief for the charitable fund on gilts yielding 2.5% is diddlysquat and the parent's discount will presumably be less than the 2.5% earned for the fund. So any rich bastard who has 5 years worth of fees to pay up front and is happy to commit to an investment for a return of 2.5% didn't get rich by putting his gonads on the line. He probably would have invested in the market and easily got 10% last year after paying higher rate tax.
This scheme is for the benefit of the charitable fund, rather than the parents, however it might be sold and I can't see many takers to be honest, so tax payers can sleep easily tonight.
This scheme doesn't appear to be what you're describing, which would be the school acts as a nominee for the investments but passes profits onto the beneficiaries i.e. the parents.
What it actually appears to be in that in exchange for the parents paying all the fees up-front - and so sacrificing the ability to invest that money themselves, they guarantee a lower cost to themselves for school fees for their child. This is, as kings hill addick has correctly pointed out, similar to other contracts where it is cheaper in the long run to pay up front than to pay on a monthly or quarterly basis.
Now, the tax-free bit. All fees paid this way go into an investment fund for the purpose of accruing interest and capital gains tax-free. The reason why they do this, rather than invest the money straight away into the school, is for two reasons mainly:
1) In the event of the child leaving the school or dying or similar, the school is contractually obliged to return any unused fees to the parents, therefore they have to be ringfenced. Likewise if the school goes bust or has liquidity issues, it has a fund to ensure staff are paid, the school can keep running or, in the worst case scenario, the school has to close but the parents still receive the unused funds back, as per the contract.
2) The school may not need to spend 7 years worth of fees straight away and can put it to better use to ensure there is a steady flow of income from its tax-free status so it can continue to offer scholarships or other benefits to the community
In order to actually encourage parents to do this, they have to offer a discount. It benefits all parties involved: the parents, who will end up paying less for school in the long run; the school, who are able to be more financially secure; and the community, who, as a result of the school enjoying an extra revenue scheme, will have scholarships, the use of the facilities and other benefits of having a fee-paying school in the area.
Storm in a teacup to be honest. I'd get angrier about the union Pilgrims that piss away much more of the taxpayers' money if I were you, if you want to start talking about what is and isn't fair to be spending taxpayers' money on.
The idea of Advance Fee Payments attracting zero tax and zero CGT may well be perfectly legal. And I haven't for one minute suggested that it mightn't be. But it doesn't seem equitable, in my opinion.
Here's an interesting piece on the subject: https://www.tes.co.uk/news/school-news/breaking-news/top-public-schools-using-charity-status-help-parents-reduce-tax-bills
If we don't fund the education system to train up Doctors who is going to look after us when we are old and need medical treatment?
Could we all have been Stephen Hawking if only we had the same education ?
I don't.
If there are educational resources made available for those perhaps educationally sub standard to improve should there not be a mechanism for those perhaps educationally above standard to excel ?
The private / public school system isn't going anywhere so best live with it - parents make choices that they think will be the best for their children and if that is a private education, violin lessons, a summer course at Chelsea FC or a Big Mac then what will be will be.
My preference - for what it's worth - is for all state-funded schools to provide the best possible educational framework and development opportunities for every child; and for privately-funded schools to contribute a more equitable contribution.