Will You Be Shopping At Boots This...
News0 min ago
Why Are Labour Threatening Private Schools?
http://
They abolished any chance for bright for poor kids to get a proper education, now they are proposing to bully private schools to fill the gap they created, odd!
They abolished any chance for bright for poor kids to get a proper education, now they are proposing to bully private schools to fill the gap they created, odd!
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by JackKnife. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Didn't a lot of the shadow cabinet have a private Education?
And Ms Abbot ??
It's called the politics of envy JK.
I wonder how labour propose to fund the edcation of the kids once small schools start closing down, let alone those that bring rich foreign kids in and so boost the economy.
Still, labour like biting of their nose to spite their face.
And Ms Abbot ??
It's called the politics of envy JK.
I wonder how labour propose to fund the edcation of the kids once small schools start closing down, let alone those that bring rich foreign kids in and so boost the economy.
Still, labour like biting of their nose to spite their face.
-- answer removed --
Getting someone to pay the correct contribution to the public kitty and not expecting to get away with breaks, is not threatening, it is putting right an injustice to the taxpayer.
There is a thread on this here already, somewhere.
The thing that's odd about the Labour goal is this ridiculous demand that a private enterprise "helps others".
It these private schools are to be allowed to exist they should pay tax like any other commercial concern not expect to get away with it simply by helping State schools. To suggest they should is to have lost the plot.
There is a thread on this here already, somewhere.
The thing that's odd about the Labour goal is this ridiculous demand that a private enterprise "helps others".
It these private schools are to be allowed to exist they should pay tax like any other commercial concern not expect to get away with it simply by helping State schools. To suggest they should is to have lost the plot.
That "How rich are You?" programme, last week, ably demonstrated how even the brightest kids from low-income families can never make good the gap because private-school pupils are helped to progress that much faster ("driven", if you will).
This gain then knocks on to the next generation, who get an even better head start (parental help, books and education aids *in the home*, etc.)
This gain then knocks on to the next generation, who get an even better head start (parental help, books and education aids *in the home*, etc.)
Why should the taxpayer subsidise Private Schools?
The state spends a fortune in providing education for all.
If that is not good enough for you, and you are wealthy, you can pay yourself for a private alternative.
The rest of the people who cannot afford private education for their own children should NOT be paying to send children who are opted out of the state system by their wealthy parents, to private schools.
Labour are not threatening the Private schools, the are saying they will be more strict about paying them a subsidy. Obviously the subsidy is making those schools more via, and keeping fees down for the very rich, which the Government should not be doing in the first pace. Period.
The state spends a fortune in providing education for all.
If that is not good enough for you, and you are wealthy, you can pay yourself for a private alternative.
The rest of the people who cannot afford private education for their own children should NOT be paying to send children who are opted out of the state system by their wealthy parents, to private schools.
Labour are not threatening the Private schools, the are saying they will be more strict about paying them a subsidy. Obviously the subsidy is making those schools more via, and keeping fees down for the very rich, which the Government should not be doing in the first pace. Period.
Erm... parents sending their children to private schools are already paying what they would need to do to fund their children at a state school. Heavy school fees are on top of all that and are paid for out of taxed income. In effect, if private school pupils return to the state system, then the available money in the state system has to stretch further.
Jourdain
// In effect, if private school pupils return to the state system, then the available money in the state system has to stretch further. //
I have no object to people who can afford to, spending their OWN money to privately educate thir children.
What I, and the Labour Party are not happy with, is them educating their children at a private school subsidised by MY tax money.
If MY money wasn't going to keep Private Schools going, there would be more money for the state system.
// In effect, if private school pupils return to the state system, then the available money in the state system has to stretch further. //
I have no object to people who can afford to, spending their OWN money to privately educate thir children.
What I, and the Labour Party are not happy with, is them educating their children at a private school subsidised by MY tax money.
If MY money wasn't going to keep Private Schools going, there would be more money for the state system.
From a financial point of view, you're surely mistaken, gromit.
The 'subsidy' for public schools is £200 per pupil per year. Their parents must be paying many times that amount towards the state school system without using any of the resources. So they're subsidising you and the state system, not the other way around.
The 'subsidy' for public schools is £200 per pupil per year. Their parents must be paying many times that amount towards the state school system without using any of the resources. So they're subsidising you and the state system, not the other way around.
At present private schools pay less tax because they are afforded business rate relief. This is presumably in recognition that they are education some children who would otherwise fall burden on the State system. It is this relief that the Labour Party is considering abolishing.
Of course it's a philosophical point but I would contend that relieving somebody of a particular tax is not using anybody else's tax money. I also find it odd that not taking money from somebody is somehow seen as providing them with funds.
However, leaving that aside, some 600,000 pupils attend around 2,500 private schools. They are afforded tax relief of about £100m, amounting to about £160 per pupil. For this modest sum it is estimated that they relieve the State sector of about £2bn in costs. (This itself may be an underestimate because that amounts to about £3.3k per pupil and most analyses suggest a figure almost twice that is more accurate). Any other facility which saved the government twenty times what it has to provide in tax relief should be encouraged, not threatened.
There is the usual element of envy with this proposal as there always is with private healthcare and private education. Whilst it is true that many wealthy people send their children to private schools (and would continue to do so even if the fees were raised to cope with the lost tax relief) private schools also educate pupils from far less affluent backgrounds. Many of them make huge sacrifices to afford school fees, often forgoing the holidays and new cars more readily afforded by parents whose children attend State schools. It is they who would be hit by this proposal and instead of threatening the excellent facilities provided by private schools politicians would be better off devising ways to bring the often appalling State system up to the same standards. And this is not a matter of cost as most studies show that the costs for State education and private education (discounting boarding costs) are comparable. But much of the cash spent on State education does not get near a classroom but is swallowed up in adminsitration costs mainly in the form of interfering Local Education Authorities.
Of course it's a philosophical point but I would contend that relieving somebody of a particular tax is not using anybody else's tax money. I also find it odd that not taking money from somebody is somehow seen as providing them with funds.
However, leaving that aside, some 600,000 pupils attend around 2,500 private schools. They are afforded tax relief of about £100m, amounting to about £160 per pupil. For this modest sum it is estimated that they relieve the State sector of about £2bn in costs. (This itself may be an underestimate because that amounts to about £3.3k per pupil and most analyses suggest a figure almost twice that is more accurate). Any other facility which saved the government twenty times what it has to provide in tax relief should be encouraged, not threatened.
There is the usual element of envy with this proposal as there always is with private healthcare and private education. Whilst it is true that many wealthy people send their children to private schools (and would continue to do so even if the fees were raised to cope with the lost tax relief) private schools also educate pupils from far less affluent backgrounds. Many of them make huge sacrifices to afford school fees, often forgoing the holidays and new cars more readily afforded by parents whose children attend State schools. It is they who would be hit by this proposal and instead of threatening the excellent facilities provided by private schools politicians would be better off devising ways to bring the often appalling State system up to the same standards. And this is not a matter of cost as most studies show that the costs for State education and private education (discounting boarding costs) are comparable. But much of the cash spent on State education does not get near a classroom but is swallowed up in adminsitration costs mainly in the form of interfering Local Education Authorities.
This initiative by that Hunt fellow is pathetic. This attack on the business rates relief is equivalent to £40k per school per year. Do the maths yourself from the figures in NJs answer above. This is less than the cost of employing one teacher, and for what that Hunt wants in return, he clearly hasn't thought out what it is going to cost the independent school. Far more. So the schools will grumble and just take the £40k tax hit.
Labour should put their house in order instead of attacking things that are successful.
Labour should put their house in order instead of attacking things that are successful.
It is very difficult to take Labour Education policy seriously when many of their leading lights ignore/have ignored it;
Tony Blair
Harriett Harperson
Dianne Abbott
Ruth Kelly
Emily Thorberry
Their draw-dropping hypocrisy was astounding, and they simply did not believe their own policies - I can still picture the ludicrous Abbott, with a straight face, saying she could not defend the indefensible. Astonishing.
Tony Blair
Harriett Harperson
Dianne Abbott
Ruth Kelly
Emily Thorberry
Their draw-dropping hypocrisy was astounding, and they simply did not believe their own policies - I can still picture the ludicrous Abbott, with a straight face, saying she could not defend the indefensible. Astonishing.
"I have no idea why private schools are subsidised by the state."
But they are not, ludwig. From my figures above, if anything it is the private schools that are subsidising the State system by removing at least £2bn from their costs which would otherwise have to be accrued if the private pupils went to State schools. In return for this saving the private schools are provided with a very modest tax relief and the parents of private schoolchildren provide the rest.
But they are not, ludwig. From my figures above, if anything it is the private schools that are subsidising the State system by removing at least £2bn from their costs which would otherwise have to be accrued if the private pupils went to State schools. In return for this saving the private schools are provided with a very modest tax relief and the parents of private schoolchildren provide the rest.
But the private students are never going to go into the state system if this subsidy is taken away. So the argument that they are shifting a burden of off the State is bogus. As is the argument that the school are doing us all a favour by accepting £40K.
The State has already provided education for all its children in State schools. The taxpayer should not be further burdened by having to sibsidise Private schools to educate rich children.
If people who are rich want to reject the education that the state provide and pay for an alternative, then that is fine. But Their decision should not cost everyone more.
If every school pays £40K less tax, then the overall tax yield will go down. Which means the rest of us will have to make up the shortfall by paying more tax. Or money spent on State education will go down.
The State has already provided education for all its children in State schools. The taxpayer should not be further burdened by having to sibsidise Private schools to educate rich children.
If people who are rich want to reject the education that the state provide and pay for an alternative, then that is fine. But Their decision should not cost everyone more.
If every school pays £40K less tax, then the overall tax yield will go down. Which means the rest of us will have to make up the shortfall by paying more tax. Or money spent on State education will go down.
"But the private students are never going to go into the state system if this subsidy is taken away."
Some of them most certainly will, Gromit, if fees increase much more. As I have said, private education is not solely the preserve of wealthy people. I know of one couple who pay for their children's education and are just about managing to do so. Any increase may well tip them over the edge and force them to revert to the State system. You seem to suggest that your tax money is subsidising these schools. As I said earlier, it is a philosophical point, but private schools receive no subsidies from the taxpayer. All that is happening is that they are being given relief from business rates (which is an iniquitous tax anyway) in the same way that a High Street charity shop does. The taxpayer is definitely not subsidising private education by allowing this very modest tax relief. If people decided to remove their children from private education it would most certainly add a burden to the taxpayer.
But above all the most galling aspect of this attack on what is one of the UK's best success stories is the way many Labour politicians for decades have treated people who indulge in private education as pariahs when they themselves have either benefited from it or use it for their children. Private schools thrive because their pupils have parents who encourage them to make the best of their education (because they can see at the end of each term how much it has cost them); they thrive because they have a strict discipline code and take no nonsense from their charges; they thrive because they instil an ethos of hard work into their pupils. What the government (whoever it might be) needs to do is to bring the often shambolic State system up to the same level of success and stop interfering with things that are completely successful. And good luck to them with that.
Some of them most certainly will, Gromit, if fees increase much more. As I have said, private education is not solely the preserve of wealthy people. I know of one couple who pay for their children's education and are just about managing to do so. Any increase may well tip them over the edge and force them to revert to the State system. You seem to suggest that your tax money is subsidising these schools. As I said earlier, it is a philosophical point, but private schools receive no subsidies from the taxpayer. All that is happening is that they are being given relief from business rates (which is an iniquitous tax anyway) in the same way that a High Street charity shop does. The taxpayer is definitely not subsidising private education by allowing this very modest tax relief. If people decided to remove their children from private education it would most certainly add a burden to the taxpayer.
But above all the most galling aspect of this attack on what is one of the UK's best success stories is the way many Labour politicians for decades have treated people who indulge in private education as pariahs when they themselves have either benefited from it or use it for their children. Private schools thrive because their pupils have parents who encourage them to make the best of their education (because they can see at the end of each term how much it has cost them); they thrive because they have a strict discipline code and take no nonsense from their charges; they thrive because they instil an ethos of hard work into their pupils. What the government (whoever it might be) needs to do is to bring the often shambolic State system up to the same level of success and stop interfering with things that are completely successful. And good luck to them with that.
1 to 18 of 18
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.