Is it fair that public schools have charitable status?
Public schools earn money by selling their services to parents. What is wrong with those services attracting tax, to be gathered by the Treasury and used either to pay down the debt burden or for a capital investment in *all* schools?
Comments
-
Did they announce another election already?0
-
I think the people that pay the fees probably more than pay their wayChizz said:"Public", fee-paying schools are usually awarded charity status, which means that they are not subject to tax in the same way as other "businesses" are. 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? Or would it be better to spend that £700m a year investing in infrastructure for comprehensive schools?
Public schools earn money by selling their services to parents. What is wrong with those services attracting tax, to be gathered by the Treasury and used either to pay down the debt burden or for a capital investment in *all* schools?2 -
It's a fair point you make but don't assume all 'public' schools have high turnover, just because they charge high fees. My mum's school, for example hasn't made profit for 2 or 3 years.0
-
They pay tax for schools don't forget, despite not using them, and on top of that put less of a burden on the public sector, which is stretched enough as it is. So yes, it is fair that they have charitable status, they perform an important function in society as well, I'm willing to bet that there is a disproportionate amount of surgeons, doctors etc who are privately educated. In fact, maybe we should introduce a schooling system that takes the brightest pupils and elevates them into a better level of education, allowing them to excel, could be a good idea. Maybe we could call them grammar schools or something like that?23
-
Cracking answer0
-
I have three children all in private education so am a bit biased here, but I can see Chizz's point (in a way). Whilst it can seem a little unfair they have special tax exemptions, if they didn't have charitable status they would have to charge even larger fees which in some cases would put potential parents off sending their kids there.
By the way, I'm not one of those rugby types who drives a big 4x4 wearing a tweed jacket. I'm just lucky enough to be able to send my kids somewhere where I beleive (hope) they will get a platform to get into a good university and get a good start in their career in later life.4 -
No.1
-
If they offer free places alongside the other students, then I believe that counts as charitable.
Not 100% au fait though.1 -
I don't think they should be charities but nor do I think they should be taxed like a commercial company. Allow them to take most of the profits from their success.
I think a small percentage of their profits should go to the LEA and be shared around other local schools though.
This gives struggling schools a helping hand, allows some flexibility with education budgets and still gives private schools the majority of their hard earned profits.0 -
Your mum's still at school?JaShea99 said:It's a fair point you make but don't assume all 'public' schools have high turnover, just because they charge high fees. My mum's school, for example hasn't made profit for 2 or 3 years.
8 -
Sponsored links:
-
Sign of the times1
-
Forget the comprehensive schools, start funding grammar schools!2
-
And abandon the rest ?0
-
Education is an approved Charitable Purpose so yes it is fair by definition.
Not all public school pupils are of the Cameron / Johnson Bullingdon ilk either and some come from ordinary backgrounds and are subsidised via scholarships and bursaries.
Here is just one example you may have heard of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Bell-Drummond1 -
LenGlover said:
Education is an approved Charitable Purpose so yes it is fair by definition.
Not all public school pupils are of the Cameron / Johnson Bullingdon ilk either and some come from ordinary backgrounds and are subsidised via scholarships and bursaries.
Here is just one example you may have heard of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Bell-Drummond
Fee-paying schools should be taxed on their profits. Therefore, for as long as they are unprofitable, they wouldn't be taxed.JaShea99 said:It's a fair point you make but don't assume all 'public' schools have high turnover, just because they charge high fees. My mum's school, for example hasn't made profit for 2 or 3 years.
0 -
He means most parents of the kids that go to private schools pay tax which goes to the state education system that they don't use0
-
My daughter won a scholarship to a local school, that is very famous, everything is paid for by their charitable trust (which is funded by ex pupils who donate to allow those less fortunate than themselves to have the same chance they did) and so therefore they can be VAT exempt. It may seem a dodge to some but whilst they allow those not able to afford the fees the chance to attend they meet the criteria.seth plum said:If they offer free places alongside the other students, then I believe that counts as charitable.
Not 100% au fait though.0 -
Well, *everyone* pays tax that's used for state education. And all businesses pay tax. The question is, is it fair that public schools are excused from paying their share?oohaahmortimer said:He means most parents of the kids that go to private schools pay tax which goes to the state education system that they don't use
0 -
If they are acting like a charity, in certain aspects, why should they not be treated as one?Chizz said:
Well, *everyone* pays tax that's used for state education. And all businesses pay tax. The question is, is it fair that public schools are excused from paying their share?oohaahmortimer said:He means most parents of the kids that go to private schools pay tax which goes to the state education system that they don't use
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
"Fair"? I don't care whether it is fair or not. Is it fair that as a taxpayer I subsidise other people's kids education at all? No. Fair is a word that rarely applies to anything if life. If you really want to tax something more, my recommendation would be to tax religious organisations who really know how to waste money.3
-
Any fee-paying school has to prove it is doing a service to the community to maintain its charitable status and this is usually done in the form of scholarships, grants, free or subsidised places or sharing faculty or facilities with other schools.
The money that would be raised from taxing fee-paying schools would be, frankly, pitiful and not worth the wider cost to society that would follow such a tax.0 -
So, are you agreeing that, as a taxpayer, it's not fair that you're subsidising public school pupils? Or are you saying that none of your taxes should be used for educating anyone except your children?cafcfan said:"Fair"? I don't care whether it is fair or not. Is it fair that as a taxpayer I subsidise other people's kids education at all? No.
0 -
Is £700m a year pitiful?Fiiish said:Any fee-paying school has to prove it is doing a service to the community to maintain its charitable status and this is usually done in the form of scholarships, grants, free or subsidised places or sharing faculty or facilities with other schools.
The money that would be raised from taxing fee-paying schools would be, frankly, pitiful and not worth the wider cost to society that would follow such a tax.
0 -
I chose not to have kids, so yes it's not fair that I subsidise others individuals' lifestyle choices but generally my point is that thinking of fairness as a concept is pointless.Chizz said:
So, are you agreeing that, as a taxpayer, it's not fair that you're subsidising public school pupils? Or are you saying that none of your taxes should be used for educating anyone except your children?cafcfan said:"Fair"? I don't care whether it is fair or not. Is it fair that as a taxpayer I subsidise other people's kids education at all? No.
0 -
What is that figure in relation to?Chizz said:
Is £700m a year pitiful?Fiiish said:Any fee-paying school has to prove it is doing a service to the community to maintain its charitable status and this is usually done in the form of scholarships, grants, free or subsidised places or sharing faculty or facilities with other schools.
The money that would be raised from taxing fee-paying schools would be, frankly, pitiful and not worth the wider cost to society that would follow such a tax.0 -
Should have said £700m over five years, not per year. It's the effect of being able to reduce business rates by 80%. It was a £165m tax-payer contribution to public schools in 2013.Fiiish said:
What is that figure in relation to?Chizz said:
Is £700m a year pitiful?Fiiish said:Any fee-paying school has to prove it is doing a service to the community to maintain its charitable status and this is usually done in the form of scholarships, grants, free or subsidised places or sharing faculty or facilities with other schools.
The money that would be raised from taxing fee-paying schools would be, frankly, pitiful and not worth the wider cost to society that would follow such a tax.0 -
a child in a private school by not being in a state school is freeing up places and making it easier for the state by them not having to provide schooling for them kids
Just like a patient in a private hospital is freeing up the nurses and beds in a NHS hospital
Charitable status for private schools being fair will depend on how each and every individual school makes a difference by being in existence and all schools will be different0 -
How many schools was that split between ?Chizz said:
Should have said £700m over five years, not per year. It's the effect of being able to reduce business rates by 80%. It was a £165m tax-payer contribution to public schools in 2013.Fiiish said:
What is that figure in relation to?Chizz said:
Is £700m a year pitiful?Fiiish said:Any fee-paying school has to prove it is doing a service to the community to maintain its charitable status and this is usually done in the form of scholarships, grants, free or subsidised places or sharing faculty or facilities with other schools.
The money that would be raised from taxing fee-paying schools would be, frankly, pitiful and not worth the wider cost to society that would follow such a tax.
And how much would the cost be if the private schools didn't exist for all those children to be state school educated1 -
I disagree that paying a lower rate of tax is a taxpayer funded contribution. I pay what I owe in tax, what I keep isn't because the taxpayers allow me to keep what I have rightfully earned.Chizz said:
Should have said £700m over five years, not per year. It's the effect of being able to reduce business rates by 80%. It was a £165m tax-payer contribution to public schools in 2013.Fiiish said:
What is that figure in relation to?Chizz said:
Is £700m a year pitiful?Fiiish said:Any fee-paying school has to prove it is doing a service to the community to maintain its charitable status and this is usually done in the form of scholarships, grants, free or subsidised places or sharing faculty or facilities with other schools.
The money that would be raised from taxing fee-paying schools would be, frankly, pitiful and not worth the wider cost to society that would follow such a tax.
But if £165m per year is what fee-paying school would pay if they were taxed as businesses then I agree it is pitiful and the wider effect on society would cost us more than that in the long run.0
