[Closed] Private School Business Rates Relief - The Scots are getting rid...

@aa there is no reason that the existence of selective grammers in itself means other schools are automatically disadvantaged.

Yes there is. I posted an example on the previous page.

@aa it’s hard to argue it will be a financial disaster, what it will be is counter productive with more pressure on the state system

Why? Private schools pay more tax, put up fees a small amount. Very few kids are pulled out of private schooling. Or some private schools that are cheaper spend less but still offer a better education than state grot holes. Not much changes. Its an easy argument to make and as well backed up as the counter one.

The interesting thing to watch is whether as a result their middle class voters start to look elsewhere.

As already said most middle class voters don't send their kids to private school and those than do are very, very likely to be voting tory already so nothing to lose for SNP.

Having worked in both sectors (top Edinburgh day school and a borders high school where 60%are SIMD 1&2) I don't think it's a bad thing to make private schools pay the rates due as long as that money then goes into "closing the attainment gap" the poorest in society deserve more spent and independent schools indirectly supporting then through taxation would be a great thing.

I also think independent schools are fine and perhaps should be sector leaders. But then I'm thinking Watson's, Heriots, stew Mel, The Academy. As opposed to fettes and Merchiston. The former are pretty much on par with the best state schools in Scotland with possible only the extras being the difference.

This is a shocking idea.
All the rich people I know are now not sending their kids to private schools and are being forced to move.
It's preposterous.

Most middle class voters don't send their kids to private school. Only about 4% of Scottish kids go to private school, though oddly in Edinburgh it's about 25%.

The Scottish private school sector is indeed pretty weird in comparison to England and Wales. Geography plays a big part I guess. If you live in most of Scotland and don't want to use a boarding school there is no option but to send your kids to the local state school because that is the only school in the area and the population density is such that it can't support a private day school option.

In Edinburgh however nearly 25% of kids are privately educated. And they are not all Fettes money (£33k pa); some are a 'relatively' modest fee. Still the preserve of the middle classes and above but not exclusively an 'elite' only decision.

Re grammar schools (declaration - I went to one in Kent in the 80's) I think it would be a really interesting social experiment to plonk a grammar school right in the centre of deprived area with an entrance priorities that meant you had to live in the area and prioritised those in social housing. Would it flourish? Would it attract teachers? I'm not convinced it would. Teachers are by and large middle class and educated. Grammar schools (by hook or by crook) attract a disproportionate number of middle class kids. I have a theory that many teachers (I am one) by and large enjoy being surrounded by their own. Would they flood to work in a selective school full of socially deprived students. Not convinced.

Those that 'hate' grammar schools. I'm assuming its because of what it does to do the remainder - being branded a failure etc. I have some sympathy. However, I've worked in a comp that streamed from day one - A, B and C. You were in that stream for 5 years and did all your classes in that stream (inc PE etc). The only time you mixed with kids from another stream was at break and lunch. A more in your face reminder of your 'failure' I can't think of. At least in the grammar system the 'boffins' are out of site and out of mind.

Finally I have been to Swaziland half a dozen times as part of an ongoing project installing running water at rural schools and as such I’ve spent a lot of time in schools and with their pupils, teachers and parents. Every time I go (but especially in the early years in 2007-9 when the country was on it's knees) it reminds me of how messed up we are in the west. There you have kids walking 5 miles barefoot to school everyday to receive some pretty brutal teaching in terrible conditions but their attitude to education is so much better than ours. The motivation, the positive attitude of poor and uneducated parents to their kids receiving good education and the appreciation that an education (and a pretty crap one at that) was a ticket to a better life makes me ashamed to be British (or western tbh). Until we have what they have in all levels of society hand wringing about private/ public sector and selective education is just messing with the periphery. You can drag a horse to water etc.

They are also allowed to deflect VAT for certain purposes too. And yet we've always charged the NHS VAT.

I can tell you this , some of them are run with the typical asset stripping glee of the neoliberals, whilst still wearing salmon coloured statist trousers.

Bad pay, cutting of essential things like heat and food whilst ploughing loads into look at me projects.

I think this is hopeful thinking as the incremental effect on their local school would be minimal. I live in an affluent area of London, and what happens here is the local state schools raise serious money every year from the PTA, far more than the private schools, parents want to put their money where it directly impacts their kids.

Which goes some way to explaining this report published today...

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42425343 ]Born in the wrong place for good schools[/url]

Its increasingly looking like instead of a two tier education system that serves the rich and privileged, we now have a 3 tier system, with private education at the top, then schools in [i]affluent areas[/i] able to '[i]raise serious money every year from the PTA'[/i], then the rest that have been progressively starved of funds.

Mays wish for more grammar schools would just further entrench and advance this

Social mobility in this country isn't just dead in the water, its going backwards.

So getting back to the original point - why on earth should private schools, which are a fundamental factor in this, be effectively subsidised by the very taxpayers who's interests it actively acts against?

As seems quite fashionable in our deluded 'have cake, eat it' country, it appears that these private schools want to be businesses when it suits, and charities when it doesn't

^ again binners, that's an education story about England that represents itself as reflecting UK. It does not.
Scotland, NI and a slightly lesser extent, Wales are different, without such a pressure on certain postcodes around schools and over-funded London schools recently. We usually go to our local school up here. Our theory is all schools should be good, not just a few select (selective?) ones...

At the end of the day it is an ideology driven shift. Pandering to the neoliberals by removing state support, disgusting! I fully expected the usual subjects to be singing the praises of this move. Maybe because it is the SNP, they don't like it?

their attitude to education is so much better than ours. The motivation, the positive attitude of poor and uneducated parents to their kids receiving good education and the appreciation that an education (and a pretty crap one at that) was a ticket to a better life makes me ashamed to be British

Hear this a lot, and was just as guilty of it myself as a snot-nosed brat! What has no cost has no value, etc!

What has no cost has no value, etc!

And that's not just financial cost.

I will say it again - this argument for me is not anti private education.

It is purely about having an equal system of taxation. All education settings should pay Business Rates, or none should pay Business Rates. From nurseries to Schools to Universities.

So thm, what exactly has John Swinney promised to achieve with the 5 million saved? You allude to it above. Or are you lying again and he hasn't promised to achieve anything with i

I gave you the exact quote. If you think it’s an empty promise without substance then we agree.

As you comment later, this is little more than ideological posturing. It captures the attention of the gullible but does SFA for Scotland’s educational inequality that persists despite the power devolved to your government to sort it out. So they play games instead of dealing with the real issue. How very SNP.,,

. Why should the general taxpayer subsidise privilege?

They do that with tertiary education in Scotland and apparently this is a good idea.

Teachers are by and large middle class and educated. Grammar schools (by hook or by crook) attract a disproportionate number of middle class kids. I have a theory that many teachers (I am one) by and large enjoy being surrounded by their own.

Indeed and I believe I once saw some data to back this up.
Your point about the Grammar in the sink estate with tighter geographical intake is a good one too but you may just find either very few get in or the entry requirement drops so much it becomes just like the comp!

i work with someone who has two kids in the local grammar school and one at private school. the one at private school wasn't smart enough to get into the grammar...

For the most part, private schools can't afford to be too choosy about who they take in

i work with someone who has two kids in the local grammar school and one at private school. the one at private school wasn't smart enough to get into the grammar...

This is pretty much the way it is(was) in Kent. Canterbury has two brilliant grammar schools and then Kent College for the Tim nice but dims 😉

Did people stereotype the kids who went to each one?

A complaint I've heard from a teacher working in Edinburgh is that private schools are quite prepared to offload pupils to the State system if the children have difficult behavioural problems or if their academic performance is not good enough and could comprise the schools' results.

Depends if you are an independent exam factor where results are your USP. We (I work in an independent school) will have anyone! Margins are incredibly tight. If the head is forced to remove kids for behavioural reasons (we are not talking about flicking rubbers here) it is not long before he has to think about removing staf too to balance the books.

The Scottish private school sector is indeed pretty weird in comparison to England and Wales. Geography plays a big part I guess. If you live in most of Scotland and don't want to use a boarding school there is no option but to send your kids to the local state school because that is the only school in the area and the population density is such that it can't support a private day school option.

But most Scots live in the central belt with quite high population density, and that wouldn't explain the difference between Glasgow and Edinburgh.

I think it's just Edinburgh being Edinburgh 😉

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 - Member

really?

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,

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...

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?

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.

Well, I never said everyone wants to, or is in a position to be able to.

Radley quoted 1 in 6 taking up the opportunity.

And low risk investments will normally form part of a balanced portfolio - in my hypothetical example I was thinking of someone who may have several £100K or £M invested at various levels of risk / reward, with the £50K being the bit that was going to go into the low-risk category, boosted a chunk by getting the income tax free (albeit sharing a bit of that with the 'charity' who's tax exempt status makes it possible).

There is no subsidy as such.

We might be in danger of getting into semantics, but to me an 80% relief on business rates looks somewhere close.

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?

😆

outofbreath - Member
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.

(Not) ofd that you accuse people of lying ducks and then suggest I am a Brexshiteer! Nicely done. Shows who tells the truth and who doesn’t.

Also odd that people focus on rich parents when they are not the ones who will be adversely affected by this silly posturing.

Politicians are very lucky that people swallow this kind of stuff - Salmond, Trump, Gove, McDonnell etc.

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.

Isn’t the link obvious - hence the sensitivity to scrutiny and the need for distractions?

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.

Well said sir.

teamhurtmore - Member
(Not) ofd that you accuse people of lying ducks and then suggest I am a Brexshiteer! Nicely done. Shows who tells the truth and who doesn’t...

When are we going to hear the case for wealthy people receiving subsidy from the taxpayer?

BTW nothing against private schools. Perfectly fine if you can afford them out of your [b]own[/b] pocket.

Clearly what the SNP should have done is change all the qualifications so that no one has the first clue whats going on with schools when the cuts kick in!

Ask your government - they continue to support the idea across the tertiary sector. It’s one of their priority policies. They will be able to explain it for you....

As an economist I am more interested in the outcomes involved. In this case, it is pretty much the opposite of what is suggested by the real witch doctors here. This proposal is likely to cost more than it saves and hurt less well off folks who want to send their kids to a private school. The well off will be much less affected. Hence my original post about laws of unintended consequences.

The tweet about the Fettes bursar was indicative of the attitudes of those involved.

As before, Scotland deserves better, much better.

and hurt less well off folks who want to send their kids to a private school.

Didn't realise it was a function of the state to subsidise people who want to send their kids to private school.

This proposal is likely to cost more than it saves and hurt less well off folks who want to send their kids to a private school.

I asked someone else if I could see their working out on this. Could we see yours?

and hurt less well off folks who want to send their kids to a private school

What sort of income range might these poor less well off folks be in?

A wide range - one of the reasons why @30% of pupils currently receive financial support.

What sort of income range might these poor less well off folks be in?

Mr sister in law earns less than £40k and sends her daughter to private school. I earn way less than you and my son goes.

Re costs. As said previously 100% any benefit from increasing rates for private schools or adding VAT would not be put back in to school budgets, so you tell me, what is the avg cost per year per pupil in a state school?

A wide range

Such as.

one of the reasons why @30% of pupils currently receive financial support.

Do you have a source for that?

Mr sister in law earns less than £40k

So do most of the people in the country. How much are the fees?

Not sure probably £4K ish a term, but she is on a scholarship

And yes I know that the avg wage is less than £40k your point being ? Earlier in the thread it was assumed that because I send my son to private school I must earn £100k +