Did people stereotype the kids who went to each one?
Yep! We were universally despised by everyone else. The private school kids looked down on us, the secondary modern kids hated us and the kids at the Roman Catholic school – well not sure what they thought is no one spoke to them!
What was strange was that although we (grammar school) were pretty small in number we kicked the arse of the secondary modern and the local 'Tim nice but dim' independents on the sports field too. And also at the bus station 'gatherings'!
. Why should the general taxpayer subsidise privilege?They do that with tertiary education in Scotland and apparently this is a good idea.
The general tax payer pays for a system of both Primary & Secondary education for everyone and in Scotland for those who earn a place a Tertiary one too. If someone wants to educate their kids outside of this system then fine but it shouldn't be done with any additional state assistance as that service is already provided.
On the VAT front, given all the things that VAT is charged on I think it is difficult to justify NOT charging it on School Fees. It is after all the very definition of a luxury service
@kcr there is some truth in that, if you don’t behave or keep up in the case if a highly academic private achool (not all are of course) you’ll be asked to leave. So that means either going to a different private school of into state sector. Privaye achools are not setup to cope with “special needs” kids
.....
The Law of Unintended Consequences
So if we have no private schools state system will be under additional pressure, a significant amount
School fess not spent will be recycled into other assets most likely BTL property (gifted to the kids) thus increasing house prices
Property prices in catchment area will go up sharply as some of those saved school fees will be used to ensure kids are in the best state school viabparents moving or buying rental property there
Some saved school fess may be put into pension thus reducing govt tax revenues
Private school teachers and staff will have to find new jobs and/or claim benefits
As I said on a thread a while ago given my time again I would possibly/probably not have sent my 3 kids to private school (2 did state college for A levels - their choice). I estimate total spend was about £600k for the three. Instead they would have private tuition and a house each (via 15-20 year BTL with mortgae paid off)
Food for thought ...
Privaye achools are not setup to cope with “special needs” kids
Just on a point of information that isn't correct - the private schools you are thinking of don't, but there are a whole load of other private schools that absolutely specialise in various different types of special need. Places are often (but not exclusively) publicly funded.
^^ understood
So if we have no private schools state system will be under additional pressure, a significant amount
Only 4% of kids in Scotland go to private school, so even if every one closed down it wouldn't make a massive difference overall.
School fess not spent will be recycled into orher assets most likely BTl property (gifted to the kids) thus increasing house prices
Every single person who has some spare money puts it into BTL property? No-one buys holidays, cars, violin lessons etc?
Property prices in catchment area will go up sharply as some if those saved school fees will be used to ensure kids are in beat””st state school.
That happens a bit with desirable state schools like Hyndland in Glasgow, but it's more that they get lots of placing requests, not so much that people move there (though people do because it's a desirable area anyway).
Private school teachers and staff will have to find new jobs and/or claim benefits
Or they can go work in the state schools which will need 4% more teachers to cope when all the private schools close down.
You've got a huge amount of whataboutery going on there 😉
Only 4% of kids in Scotland go to private school, so even if every one closed down it wouldn't make a massive difference overall
True but would cost more that it saves. Great joined up thinking. Still ideology is more important than results for SNP
Gross distortions of the truth from Jamba and THM about anything to do with tax as usual.
The state would have no trouble funding extra state school places for kids curently in private schools if the parents paid the tax they avoid by sending their kids to private schools.
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/2802568/Let-the-taxman-pay-your-childrens-school-fees.html ]As stated by the Telegraph[/url]
For example, a parent aged 45 wanting to have enough to pay for, or pay off, £50,000 of school fees in 10 years' time (when 55) could easily cover this with the £58,320 he could receive in tax relief on pension contributions, according to Legal & General.
It's just another outrageous perk for people with high earnings. And breeds another generation of privileged, old-school-tie, condescending, entitled ****s who treat the rest of society with contempt.
Even by Jamba's standards that is a fair old pile of poo. Funny how he is so certain about Brexit yet there are so many consequences about a much simpler piece of legislation. THM also managed his third SNP BAAAAAADDDD in less than 24 hours. Good to see two of the biggest poster boys for indy and a hard border with England on the same page.
Interesting correlation between those who are decrying this initiative by the SNP, and those in favour of Brexit.
Go figure.
Private school teachers and staff will have to find new jobs and/or claim benefits
Firstly the state schools across UK are desperately short of teachers.
Secondly many are not qualified in private schools, so unable to teach in all Scottish or NI schools, and many English and wish schools.
Forget the educational consequences because that's all speculation. Forget the political point scoring, SNPbaaad, etc.
Just explain to me why a person wealthy enough to spend their money on sending their children to a private school should have this subsidised by the taxpayer.
Come on, can you give us a plausible justification for Welfare for the Wealthy?
And don't give us the shit about people making sacrifices to do this. Sacrifice is the mother on benefits skimping on her own food so her kids can turn up at school properly fed.
Just explain to me why a person wealthy enough to spend their money on sending their children to a private school should have this subsidised by the taxpayer.
Would now be a good time to introduce the advance fees tax scam to the conversation?
For those unfamiliar with this, the short version is that these "charities" allow parents to use their charitable status to invest money and benefit from tax free interest. So the rich directly benefit from the tax exemption available to the school.
For those who confuse this with the more reasonable arrangements where people can pay their fees upfront in order to fix the price (i.e. avoiding future increases), that's not what I'm on about. I'm on about the schemes actively marketed to parents as a tax efficient investment vehicle.
Secondly many are not qualified in private schools, so unable to teach in all Scottish or NI schools, and many English and wish schools.
Not many, bar the old boys or the boarding schools. Everyone I worked with was GTCS qualified.
Imagine being in favour of an ideology of fairness, bizarre eh?
Edukator - Thanks for the link by the way, I will have to investigate, but on my below national avg salary my pension my not be big enough to be able to do this.
It's just another outrageous perk for people with high earnings. And breeds another generation of privileged, old-school-tie, condescending, entitled **** who treat the rest of society with contempt.
Well that's your view. Others might think that it helps develop a generation of highly skilled and educated individuals who help grow the economy of the UK bringing wealth and employment to the UK.
Well that's your view. Others might think that it helps develop a generation of highly skills and educated individuals who help grow the economy of the UK bringing wealth and employment to the UK.
Given the fact that only 4% of kids in Scotland go to private school it doesn't really follow that an entire generation will benefit.
Given the UK's productivity figures it doesn't seem that the education system is currently churning out highly educated jobs creators.
Others might think that it helps develop a generation of highly skilled and educated individuals who help grow the economy of the UK bringing wealth and employment to the UK
Yeah, but thats just delusional. It actually ensures the opposite. Its incredibly detrimental to our economy, and isn't in the interests of the nation as a whole, but simply benefits a rich and privileged minority
We all know the figures about how the top level of professions are totally dominated by people who's parents could afford the fees, and the opportunities that those places afforded them.
Thats it! Thats their qualification for the role. They aren't necessarily the brightest, the best qualified, the smartest, or the shrewdest. Their parents just had the wealth to provide them with opportunities denied to the vast majority of others
You seriously think thats good for us as a nation? You don't think we might be doing a little bit better if we lived in a country where the very mention of the phrase 'meritocracy' wasn't so tragically laughable?
Just look at the *ing mess we're in at the moment.
Two words:
David Cameron
The man who said, when asked why he should be prime minister replied "I think I'd be rather good at it" with the monumental arrogance of the entitled that only the Eton/Oxbridge golden elevator can deliver
Yeah, well just look where thats *ing got us all!
[img] 
[/img]
poly - Memberreally?
No, I was taking the piss. 🙂
For the most part, private schools can't afford to be too choosy about who they take in
My nephews (in law) are about to go to Private School, but they have to pass an 11-plus equivalent to get in. They don't take dimwits apparently. London way...
My nephews (in law) are about to go to Private School, but they have to pass an 11-plus equivalent to get in. They don't take dimwits apparently
Yes, that is why the output is a group of people with higher grades than average, same as with a grammar school. The education is not better, the selected pupils are - this is what fools a lot of people.
My nephews (in law) are about to go to Private School, but they have to pass an 11-plus equivalent to get in. They don't take dimwits apparently. London way...
AKA the grammar school system, pass the 11 plus and get in. Only the wealthy parents tutor their kids for the entrance exam, then have to keep their kids tutored throughout their academic life so they can keep up.
But it’s all about promoting academic excellence.......
The education is not better, the selected pupils are - this is what fools a lot of people.
Some private schools select pupils, others don’t. However on the whole their facilities are way better than state schools. Class sizes are half that of state, and if selected, no idiot at the back disrupting the class.
That all makes the education process better
Two words:David Cameron
The man who said, when asked why he should be prime minister replied "I think I'd be rather good at it" with the monumental arrogance of the entitled that only the Eton/Oxbridge golden elevator can deliver
Yeah, well just look where thats ****ing got us all!
that's just the politics of envy... 😉
They don't take dimwits apparently.
I've met plenty of privately educated people who are a living, braying testament to that definitely not being the case
[img] 
[/img]
😆
Food for thought ...
Or a load of made up bollocks...project fear?
For example, a parent aged 45 wanting to have enough to pay for, or pay off, £50,000 of school fees in 10 years' time (when 55) could easily cover this with the £58,320 he could receive in tax relief on pension contributions, according to Legal & General.
That’s nothing to do with the tax status of the schools (and I agree in principle they should be taxed as any other business) that’s just avoiding tax through pension contributions, and spending the saving on school fees in this case. Tax relief on pension contributions is a well-established way of nudging people to behave in a certain way deemed desirable, ie to save for their old age. Open to anybody...
Okay, while trying to recall that this thread started on the subject of whether private schools should benefit from the tax advantages of being "charities" rather than whether they are the root of all evil, I thought I'd expand a bit on that advance fee thing I mentioned a bit ago. Here's how it works:
You are a higher rate tax payer, with £50K 'spare' looking for a return, but with zero / minimal risk. You also have offspring at a private school.
You could put that £50K into a high interest deposit account and get 3.5% on it. But as a higher rate tax payer you'll pay 40% on that, so you only see a 2.1% return.
So, instead, you pay £50K to the school for fees, paid in advance. The school can then invest in exactly the same thing. But they're a charity and don;t pay any tax at all on it, so the full 3.5% return comes back.
The school then gives you a 3% discount on your fees for paying up front. Everyone's a winner. Except for the Exchequer of course.
Now, I'd like to emphasise (because this caused some confusion last time it came up) that this tax advantage is actively marketed to parents by the schools as a tax efficient investment. It got a bit of publicity a few years ago so the websites are a little more coy about it than they once were, but trawling through some older reports, here are some quotes from schools:
Harrow describes it as a ‘tax-efficient Advance Fees Scheme, which offers attractive returns.’
Radley.. boasts that one in six of its current boys have fees paid in advance. It adds it ‘can be very beneficial when parents and other are assessed at the higher rate of tax. There should be no involvement with capital gains tax.’
The Independent Schools Bursars Association says: ‘The key point to bear in mind is that the commutation benefit to the parents/guardians is not subject to taxation. Therefore a higher rate taxpayer may find the scheme attractive even at a rate somewhat lower than could be obtained in the financial markets.’
A bit more from Radley:
funds paid into the scheme are invested in British Government or other fixed interest stocks which guarantees both interest payments and capital redemption. As the College enjoys charitable status it does not pay tax on the interest received. This can be very beneficial when parents and others are assessed at the higher rate of tax.”
On its website, Harrow School highlights the “tax-efficient” nature of the scheme, saying it offers “attractive returns” that are “tax free”.
Now, apart from any general "man on the Clapham omnibus" cries of "not fair!" there's potentially an issue with regard to these schemes and the schools' charitable status - investment gains are not taxed on the basis that they are used to further the organisation's charitable purpose(s).
Personally, I find it very difficult to reconcile "helping the rich to avoid tax on the interest earned on cash investments" with that requirement, but then I'm not the Charity Commission so what do I know?
binners - Member
They don't take dimwits apparently.
I've met plenty of privately educated people who are a living, braying testament to that definitely not being the case
I’ve met plenty who are very sharp, capable people. I suspect there’s a mixture, just like with comp-educated folk, except you don’t zone in on them being a thicko quite so much when they haven’t got a posh accent?
except you don’t zone in on them being a thicko quite so much when they haven’t got a posh accent?
They tend not to be running the country either
So, instead, you pay £50K to the school for fees, paid in advance. The school can then invest in exactly the same thing. But they're a charity and don;t pay any tax at all on it, so the full 3.5% return comes back.The school then gives you a 3% discount on your fees for paying up front. Everyone's a winner. Except for the Exchequer of course.
That's nothing to do with the School's charitable status, that's just like you or me overpaying our mortgage (which is effectively tax free savings) or saving in a ISA. You could do exactly the same deal with a Garage or (in my case an Energy supplier). You pay early, you get a discount and you don't pay tax on that discount.
I've met plenty of privately educated people who are a living, braying testament to that definitely not being the case
So better to segregate them from people in comprehensives so comprehensive kids don't pick up bad habits?
That's nothing to do with the School's charitable status, that's just like you or me overpaying our mortgage (which is effectively tax free savings) or saving in a ISA. You could do exactly the same deal with a Garage or (in my case an Energy supplier). You pay early, you get a discount and you don't pay tax on that discount.
The difference in the gain to the parent (in this case the difference between a yield of 3% and 2.1%) is entirely, 100% attributable to it having been invested via a charity. It is everything to do with the school's charitable status, because without it, it simply wouldn't work.
The difference in the gain to the parent (in this case the difference between a yield of 3% and 2.1%) is entirely, 100% attributable to it having been invested via a charity. It is everything to do with the school's charitable status, because without it, it simply wouldn't work.
It would work fine. If it didn't no businesses would give discounts for early payment and overwhelmingly they do. It's cheap money for them, and a good deal for the customer. How they all invest their cash is up to them, mostly they invest it in themselves (especially at the moment). I have one large yearly bill I bay in advance and save 6pc so even firms that pay tax can beat 2-3pc!
Almost all Schools are not for profit anyway so even if they weren't charities they still wouldn't pay tax.
Here we go again.
We are back to the old private school (bad) v state school (good) argument again. With a rehash of all the old arguments rolled out for a public hearing (again). Why should private schools be exempt from business rates and VAT while state schools are not? It's not fair to have private schools!! etc
Agreed that rich people send their children to private school. Also ordinary working people send their kids to private school (if they can afford it). I was luck I was able to send my two to a private school from ages 7-16, not sure I could afford it now.
Why? Because it stretched them, it managed to get the best out of them, it gave them opportunities to do other things. Is it so wrong as a parent to want your child to have the best opportunities? Most kids do not go to Eton or Wellington or Marlborough or Stowe. They go to good quality local private schools, they won't end up knowing a son of a partner at KPMG, chances are they'll being mates with the son of a local architect.
Many of these local private schools have programs to less well off or kids with financial needs to be able to attend. I know that for the school my two went to, a large amount of the 'profit' went into the foundation that managed this.
We can choose as a society to have business rates and charge VAT on school fees, but private schools will remain. They will stop doing any charitable work. We can choose to stop the tax loopholes but this will impact every charity who uses this facility.
Or we can accept that we live in an imperfect world. There will always be a degree of unfairness, a degree of "I don't like that".
In the same way that as an Englishman I find it ludicrous that the SNP are attacking private schools in Scotland when the public education in Scotland is getting worse, as shown by the Scottish governments figures.
Almost all Schools are not for profit anyway so even if they weren't charities they still wouldn't pay tax.
But but I was told we'd see some sort of middleclasstrackworld apocalypse.
Almost all Schools are not for profit anyway so even if they weren't charities they still wouldn't pay tax.
I know it was a few pages ago, but the thread started about the mandatory 80% business rates relief for charities..
Most kids do not go to Eton or Wellington or Marlborough or Stowe. They go to good quality local private schools,
Pretty sure most kids go to state schools tbh
They will stop doing any charitable work
I though all their work was charitable?
Many of these local private schools have programs to less well off or kids with financial needs to be able to attend. I know that for the school my two went to, a large amount of the 'profit' went into the foundation that managed this.
The Scottish model is rather different to this. It was mentioned a few pages back, some of them (St Leonards in St Andrews was the example used.) have one funded place.
But but I was told we'd see some sort of middleclasstrackworld apocalypse.
Doubt it. Few more day pupils in state schools in Scotland, a few more boarders going to England instead of Scotland, a few less teaching jobs in Scotland a few more in England. Very little change.
The SNP are the only UK party who both a) Understand and b) Acknowledge the Laffer Curve. They will have worked out this won't chase too much money/talent down south & the extra votes will be worth the cost.
Relax.
They will stop doing any charitable work.
Lets be completely honest here and ask "what charitable work to they actually do?" and the further question of do they benefit the individual to the detriment of society as a whole? If the answer to the second question is yes then society should not be offering any assistance.
it managed to get the best out of them
Oh and the single biggest influencer of how well a child will perform is the attitude of the parents. The school that they attend is way down the list.
sadmadalan - Member
....as an Englishman I find it ludicrous that the SNP are attacking private schools in Scotland...
As a Scotsman I find it ludicrous that anyone who with the means to send their child to a private school should expect to be subsidised by the taxpayer. No Welfare for the Wealthy.
Or we can accept that we live in an imperfect world. There will always be a degree of unfairness, a degree of "I don't like that".
I'm surprised that this is only the second time this argument has been used so far in this thread.
It is not inevitable, it is entirely fixable. Again, look at Scandinavia for examples.
As a Scotsman I find it ludicrous that anyone who with the means to send their child to a private school should expect to be subsidised by the taxpayer. No Welfare for the Wealthy.
Really? So if (say) a 1 pence tax subsidy for the hyper wealthy was shown to bring 50 wealthy people to live in Scotland who would (say) spend £999,999,999,999,999,999 in Scotland over the next 10 years you'd say no?
50p worth of tax break to attract £999,999,999,999,999,999 and you'd say no on principle?
Admirable.
The prepayment benefit only exists if you would otherwise have been investing in gilts, which yield 1.5%, if you wouldn't have been then the chances are that you will not benefit.
There is no subsidy as such. The question is how much should private schools be taxed as compared to other enterprises. Tax is income, choosing to tax an enterprise less is not a real cost and you don't know the extent of until you withdraw it. You would expect behaviour to change to mitigate the liability. Business Rate relief for charity shops causes much more damage in my view as it skews the market.
Serious question - has anyone ever put (or considered putting) their kids in an underperforming school (by choice, not because it was the closest) in a hope it would raise the academic ability of said school?
