ChatterBank3 mins ago
Does Eton College really deserve to be a charity?
13 Answers
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/ed ucation-news/tax-threat-could-hit-hundreds-of- public-schools-1744947.html
And if the only test for a charity is "public benfit" shouldn't drugs companies qualify too?
Having companies that develop drugs like Tamiflu is clearly a public benefit.
Not to mention viagra
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. 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.
Private schools claim charitable status because they claim that in providing education they are providing a public benefit.
It becomes hard to argue that that benefit is "public" if they do not provide bursaries to bright children who's parents could not otherwise afford to send them.
Some have tried to argue that by educating those who pay a public benefit is provided by relieving pressure on state school places.
But that's a bit like arguing that I should get tax breaks for using my private car for not putting pressure on public transport!
I think many in the Labour party would argue that the quality of someones education should not depend on the fatness of their parent's wallet but as the situation is as it is it is fair enough to class them as a charity providing they show sufficient *public* benefit.
But a few years back Eton Colledge was a larger charity than Children in Need.
And surely that's not right!
It becomes hard to argue that that benefit is "public" if they do not provide bursaries to bright children who's parents could not otherwise afford to send them.
Some have tried to argue that by educating those who pay a public benefit is provided by relieving pressure on state school places.
But that's a bit like arguing that I should get tax breaks for using my private car for not putting pressure on public transport!
I think many in the Labour party would argue that the quality of someones education should not depend on the fatness of their parent's wallet but as the situation is as it is it is fair enough to class them as a charity providing they show sufficient *public* benefit.
But a few years back Eton Colledge was a larger charity than Children in Need.
And surely that's not right!
Many schools like Eton were set up as charities to provide education for the poor of their area.
What they've developed into is something entirely different (providing education for the rich from outside their area)and one wonders whether the charity endowments are being used for their proper purpose.
What they've developed into is something entirely different (providing education for the rich from outside their area)and one wonders whether the charity endowments are being used for their proper purpose.
[Two part post]
I also heard the �public transport� argument on Radio 4 yesterday, jake.
It is not analogous to this argument. People are not compelled by law to travel around and (with one or two minor exceptions) the government or local authorities are not compelled by law to provide transport for them.
Again with one or two minor exceptions parents are compelled by law to send their children to school and local authorities are tasked with providing for their education. In paying for private education parents are relieving the state (i.e. the taxpayer) of that burden and in that respect are benefitting far more people than a single issue charity might.
Very few charities would meet your �principal purpose is for the public benefit� criterion. Many of them benefit only very small and narrow sections of the population. It is true that many of us may need their help at some time, but that is not the same as saying that we all benefit from their activities.
Also bear in mind that in holding charitable status private schools do not receive any benefits from the government, they merely pay less to it. It is comparable to the government announcing that they are cutting income tax to �return money to taxpayers�. They are doing no such thing. They are simply stealing less from them � quite a different matter.
I also heard the �public transport� argument on Radio 4 yesterday, jake.
It is not analogous to this argument. People are not compelled by law to travel around and (with one or two minor exceptions) the government or local authorities are not compelled by law to provide transport for them.
Again with one or two minor exceptions parents are compelled by law to send their children to school and local authorities are tasked with providing for their education. In paying for private education parents are relieving the state (i.e. the taxpayer) of that burden and in that respect are benefitting far more people than a single issue charity might.
Very few charities would meet your �principal purpose is for the public benefit� criterion. Many of them benefit only very small and narrow sections of the population. It is true that many of us may need their help at some time, but that is not the same as saying that we all benefit from their activities.
Also bear in mind that in holding charitable status private schools do not receive any benefits from the government, they merely pay less to it. It is comparable to the government announcing that they are cutting income tax to �return money to taxpayers�. They are doing no such thing. They are simply stealing less from them � quite a different matter.
[Part two]
Many parents who send their children to private school are not rich. They often make considerable sacrifices to provide their children with the sort of education they deserve and which the state often seems singularly unable to provide. If Eton and its like lose their charitable status they will not close and will continue to be heavily subscribed. The increased fees will still be met by the well off (who, ironically, will get their accountants to find a way to make their subscriptions more tax-efficient).
The schools under threat will be those who draw their intake from less well off families who sacrifice their foreign holidays, new cars and meals out to pay school fees to less well known establishments which they can currently just about afford. Eton will not suddenly be filled up with pupils who might otherwise have gone to Slough comprehensive.
Another great social engineering attempt badly thought out, that will be (if it is implemented) badly administered, resulting in disaster for those who can least afford it.
Many parents who send their children to private school are not rich. They often make considerable sacrifices to provide their children with the sort of education they deserve and which the state often seems singularly unable to provide. If Eton and its like lose their charitable status they will not close and will continue to be heavily subscribed. The increased fees will still be met by the well off (who, ironically, will get their accountants to find a way to make their subscriptions more tax-efficient).
The schools under threat will be those who draw their intake from less well off families who sacrifice their foreign holidays, new cars and meals out to pay school fees to less well known establishments which they can currently just about afford. Eton will not suddenly be filled up with pupils who might otherwise have gone to Slough comprehensive.
Another great social engineering attempt badly thought out, that will be (if it is implemented) badly administered, resulting in disaster for those who can least afford it.
Nice try NJ
But public schools in this country are not full of working class kids who's parents are going without heating to get their children through school.
Mostly the sacrifices are more along the lines of having foreign holidays less often, or buying a Ford rather than a Merc or BMW
I went to a private school myself. I don't think there was one working class kid in my year!
Charities help narrow sections true.
The blind - but any of us could go blind
The old - we could all become old and infirm
But you want us, the tax payers to subsidise the well off at a time when the public purse is under such scrutiny.
But public schools in this country are not full of working class kids who's parents are going without heating to get their children through school.
Mostly the sacrifices are more along the lines of having foreign holidays less often, or buying a Ford rather than a Merc or BMW
I went to a private school myself. I don't think there was one working class kid in my year!
Charities help narrow sections true.
The blind - but any of us could go blind
The old - we could all become old and infirm
But you want us, the tax payers to subsidise the well off at a time when the public purse is under such scrutiny.
I pay to send my goddaughter to my old Prep School.
I'm not fabulously wealthy, so they are not limited to rich parents.
Plus ...
The school has a number of functions ... golf days, Balls, etc ... to raise money to provide bursaries for those promising children who could not otherwise afford to go.
I don't go to all the functions, but I do make payments to the bursary, to help those children.
So ... I pay to help some strangers' kids to have the education they want.
If the school lost its charitable status, I would still pay for my goddaughter ...
Only the "poor" kids would lose out.
I'm not fabulously wealthy, so they are not limited to rich parents.
Plus ...
The school has a number of functions ... golf days, Balls, etc ... to raise money to provide bursaries for those promising children who could not otherwise afford to go.
I don't go to all the functions, but I do make payments to the bursary, to help those children.
So ... I pay to help some strangers' kids to have the education they want.
If the school lost its charitable status, I would still pay for my goddaughter ...
Only the "poor" kids would lose out.
jno jnr went to a fee-paying school because we checked out the state schools in the area and they weren't good enough. Our choice, and we paid. But no, I didn't expect the public to subsidise us us through tax breaks. New Judge, I think a tax break is a benefit; it means others have to pay more tax to make up the shortfall. No, none of them should be seen as charities unless they really are doing what people would consider - by modern standards, not those of the 15th century - to be charitable work, and I don't mean just the occasional scholarship.
What about the argument that, in paying for "our" children to be educated ...
(1) We don't use our share of the state education fund ... even though we have paid our taxes, and
(2) We free up places at "first choice" state schools, so that more parents get into their preferred schools.
And so ... we deserve some sort of tax break.
(1) We don't use our share of the state education fund ... even though we have paid our taxes, and
(2) We free up places at "first choice" state schools, so that more parents get into their preferred schools.
And so ... we deserve some sort of tax break.
People don't get a rebate for not having children
I've never called for an ambulance - I don't get a rebate for this.
The state system provides you with an insurance system, a safety net. If you found you couldn't pay for private education any more you're children would still be educated.
It's difficult to see the exact figures but based on what proportion of their income people claim to spend on fees the average private school familly appears to have a combined income of in excess of �100,000
I'm not calling for the end of the private sector - just for them to stop pretending to be charities.
Let them pay tax like any other business then maybe we can see an increase in funding at the schools where 90% of us send our children
I've never called for an ambulance - I don't get a rebate for this.
The state system provides you with an insurance system, a safety net. If you found you couldn't pay for private education any more you're children would still be educated.
It's difficult to see the exact figures but based on what proportion of their income people claim to spend on fees the average private school familly appears to have a combined income of in excess of �100,000
I'm not calling for the end of the private sector - just for them to stop pretending to be charities.
Let them pay tax like any other business then maybe we can see an increase in funding at the schools where 90% of us send our children
No you would not jake.
A sizeable chunk of the national budget (�88bn, 13%, third only to Social Services and Health) already goes towards state education.
There is no reason to suppose that if charitable status were removed from private schools the (comparitively) miniscule amount of money gained would somehow be ring-fenced and go towards education.
It would more likely be used to create further unproductive jobs in the public sector.
Your remark about people not receiving rebates for services they do not use is quite right. And it's scandalous. The state by no means has the monopoly on spending money wisely and it's about time people were left with more of their own funds so that they can buy the services of their choice, without having to fund those services provided for everybody else.
A sizeable chunk of the national budget (�88bn, 13%, third only to Social Services and Health) already goes towards state education.
There is no reason to suppose that if charitable status were removed from private schools the (comparitively) miniscule amount of money gained would somehow be ring-fenced and go towards education.
It would more likely be used to create further unproductive jobs in the public sector.
Your remark about people not receiving rebates for services they do not use is quite right. And it's scandalous. The state by no means has the monopoly on spending money wisely and it's about time people were left with more of their own funds so that they can buy the services of their choice, without having to fund those services provided for everybody else.
1 to 13 of 13
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.