this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024

72 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

75 readers

15 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

flamingos@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

Private school tax breaks a 'luxury', says Phillipson (www.bbc.co.uk)

submitted 2 months ago by SleafordMod@feddit.uk to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Do you think the government should tax private school fees?

top 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] nous@programming.dev 20 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Seems like a fair way to tax richer parent IMO. Given

Approximately 93% of children in the UK currently attend state schools, Phillipson said. Only the richest people are actually really attending private schools and most people are already priced out of them.

The money raised would go towards investing in state schools and teacher recruitment, Phillipson wrote in the Telegraph., external She added that £1.8bn would be raised a year by 2029-30.

That would be nice. But lets be real. Will the state schools see this money? Or will it be funneled to other things?

But the Independent Schools Council (ISC), which represents most of the UK's private schools, said the money the government claimed it would raise was an "estimate, not a fact".

Yeah, I can believe that as well.

"Labour's decision to tax education will mean thousands of hardworking parents will no longer be able to afford to send their children, including those with SEND [special educational needs and disabilities], to private school."

Oh no, a few thousand not quite rich enough kids will have to attend a state schools like 93% of other children. What ever will they do!?!?! Not sure about that call out for SEND specifically though... seems like fear mongering to me. Are there not already loads in state schools? Are state schools not equipped for this already? And will any of those extra funds be used to improve that situation at all?

[–] Buckshot@programming.dev 13 points 2 months ago

The bit about SEND is a lie because they are exempt from the new tax. The "hardworking parents" bit always annoys me, it implies the 93% just aren't working hard enough. If that's the case I'm sure those who can't afford the tax can just work a bit harder to cover it.

[–] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If private schools have better SEND provision then they should take all SEND kids.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Private schools don't because special needs kids are not profitable. They cost a lot to support. Much better to let the state deal with that.

[–] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

Of course. It's just hard to be sympathetic with people who complain about losing privileged access to something that is already denied to the vast majority of others through no fault of their own. What people deserve shouldn't be based on how much money their parents have. And don't forget that the reason most rich people are rich is because they successfully exploit the labour of others. Resources get automatically redistributed upwards in our economy. The wonky thing about this Labour policy though is that it looks like it punishes the 'poorer' rich people most.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Not just the richest send their kids to private schools. My kids went there, and I'm far from rich. But it was our choice to send them there, and at the same time, I support eliminating the VAT exemption. One motivation that drives middle-class parents to send their kids to private schools is to help them queue-jump when applying for university. But from a broader perspective, teaching to optimise exam scores is not the same thing as education, and hothouse flowers are not robust.

Defunding the education rat race is a good thing in the long run. Having a two-tier system just reinforces inequality.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 5 points 2 months ago

Kids plural - taking the average private school fees today at £18k/pupil and assuming there's at least 2 gives £36k/year, if you can afford that on top of living expenses you're better off than most.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Just because you don't have a Ferrari for every day of the week doesn't mean you are not well off. The fact that you can afford to send your kids to private school kind of proves that you are richer than the vast majority of the population.

There's nothing wrong with sending your kids to private school but you need to understand how privileged you are.

[–] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 13 points 2 months ago (10 children)

Just remember that because inequality, CPI inflation and property prices have been increasing, rich people have been experiencing real terms deflation. They can more than afford this. Yes, it will nudge a few marginally rich people away from private education. But if that benefits the education of poorer kids then I'm in favour of it.

It's not an important tax though and won't accomplish much economically.

We need a tax on assets. It's not fair play to hoard an inhuman amount resources and use them to crush your fellow countrymen.

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 6 points 2 months ago

Education should be free. Being employed in education and good at the job should be a golden ticket in life. Education should be the greatest expense of any government. Tax the fucking rich (income, wealth, everything).

Taxing a few private schools is cute. That's it.

[–] Nomad@infosec.pub 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Goods and services being tax exempt is a way of incentivizing people to buy them. I don't see the reason, why we would not incentivize patents to invest in education of their children.

[–] FarceOfWill@infosec.pub 10 points 2 months ago

It's actually compulsory so no need to incentivise anything

[–] nous@programming.dev 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That argument falls apart because state schools exist and 93% of children already attend. Which means private schools are not very popular despite their tax exempt status. So it is not encouraging many people to attend them and it is not like not going to a private school is not investing in your child's education since a free alternative that is not a complete shit hole exists. Turns out well funded public services can be a good thing and we don't need to privatize everything to see the best results.

In reality this seems more like a tax on rich parents who are the only ones that can afford expensive private schools in the first place all to hopefully better fund the free for everyone else state schools that most people already use.

[–] Nomad@infosec.pub 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What you are saying is, there is a reason to discourage people to give their children worse education justs because they can afford it? Education is a universally good thing, not unlike healthcare. Everybody should have access to as much as possible and society can afford. Some people can obviously afford the top of healthcare by paying extra. So what you are saying is: abolish being rich. But where do incebtives come from? Because some members of society used to eat first so they are strong and defend the group. Not that today's well fed members of society do that, but they should. Nothing wrong with eating first, but they have to do their part, which they don't. And 2% tax on 7% of pupils in your county won't change that or significantly impact public school funding. They have you fight other groups in society so you won't take revenge on the bad CEOs in this world that eat first.

[–] nous@programming.dev 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Education is a universally good thing, not unlike healthcare. Everybody should have access to as much as possible and society can afford.

Yes this is true. And how do we get everybody access to as much as possible? Provide good quality services for free to everyone. Not by encouraging a tiny fraction of of people that private schools are vastly better then public ones.

. And 2% tax on 7% of pupils in your county won’t change that or significantly impact public school funding.

VAT, which I believe this is what they where exempt from, is 20%, not 2%. It might still be a small amount overall, but why should that matter? Any more money towards public education is a benefit. I would like to see other efforts to increase that further from other areas but I am not going to be against this just because it is not a big enough difference.

So what you are saying is: abolish being rich.

Ultra super rich, yes. They don't need all that money and it could be used to better the lives of a lot more people. The wealth gap increasing does not improve the lives of people, just they few that are on top.

Because some members of society used to eat first so they are strong and defend the group. Not that today’s well fed members of society do that, but they should.

I mean yeah? That is my point. They should but they don't. So what benefit do they give us? There has been a big push for trickle down economics for a long time... but it does not work. All we have seen is an increased wealth gap and more people getting into poverty. We need to start taxing the rich and actually funnel that money to the people that need it - defend the group as a whole, which they are failing to do currently.

[–] Nomad@infosec.pub 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Just to say it again. I agree with taxing the rich. I don'ta agree where you raise a minuscule amount of taxes from 501c private schools. Let's call for a 30% wealth tax so we get a wealth ceiling.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

501c? What do US tax orgs have to do with UK education?

[–] Nomad@infosec.pub 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nonprofit. Don't know how they are called in the UK, but they usually work the same everywhere.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Any chance that if you don't even know the basis by which they're free of VAT you might not be well enough informed to be touting an opinion on it?

[–] Nomad@infosec.pub 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think running my own company for 10 years kinda qualifies me to know how taxing vat differences on a balance sheet works. Consumers usually see only the Vat added...

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 1 points 2 months ago

It probably does, it's just not relevant to what we're talking about.

[–] fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk 7 points 2 months ago (7 children)

A tiny amount of tax on the luxury "schools" for the ultra-rich can be used to invest in actual real schools for the education of the entire country.

[–] Nomad@infosec.pub 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well, if it's just a tiny amount, why not instead use a big amount of taxes to improve public schools so private schools have nothing better to offer? And then tax wealth

[–] fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk 3 points 2 months ago

That would be ideal, yes :)

load more comments (6 replies)