OV9

dinny_g wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:33 pm

Nefarious wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:15 pm yet more tax breaks for rich people

It's not a tax break

Explain?

It's artificially classing something that isn't a charity as a charity in order to not pay tax.

ETA - perhaps I'm just seeing this differently. I don't see any real reason why charity status was allowed in the first place, other than that those in charge mostly went to these schools and look favourably upon them, and all their mates were quite appreciative of the extra cash in their pocket. To justify not putting that situation right by saying that the whole rest of the system is fucked and couldn't cope, seems a bit arse-about-face to me.

dinny_g wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:33 pm

Nefarious wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:15 pm yet more tax breaks for rich people

It's not a tax break

This. Nor is it for "the rich"

Also, please let's not confuse "public school" with "private school". Two quite distinct terms.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:43 pm

dinny_g wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:33 pm

Nefarious wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:15 pm yet more tax breaks for rich people

It's not a tax break

This. Nor is it for "the rich"

Also, please let's not confuse "public school" with "private school". Two quite distinct terms.

To clarify - are you saying there's no correlation between income and attendance at fee paying school?

Also, same question as to Dinny - why is it not a tax break?

A tax break is a change in law that results in the opportunity to pay less in taxes

Nefarious wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:21 pm

dinny_g wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:33 pm

Nefarious wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:15 pm yet more tax breaks for rich people

It's not a tax break

Explain?

It's artificially classing something that isn't a charity as a charity in order to not pay tax.

ETA - perhaps I'm just seeing this differently. I don't see any real reason why charity status was allowed in the first place, other than that those in charge mostly went to these schools and look favourably upon them, and all their mates were quite appreciative of the extra cash in their pocket. To justify not putting that situation right by saying that the whole rest of the system is fucked and couldn't cope, seems a bit arse-about-face to me.

Charitable status no longer forms part of the proposals by Labour to tax private education AFAIK. They dropped that element. It's now just simply taxation on private education.

Presumably because a: it sounded terrible to some to revoke charitable status where schools do demonstrably provide charitable services and b: rakes in a shitload more by being more general - the proportion of private schools that have charitable status I'm not sure of. Gov't page suggests 75% of those registered with the ISC but that's only half of private schools.

Nefarious wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:44 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:43 pm

dinny_g wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:33 pm

It's not a tax break

This. Nor is it for "the rich"

Also, please let's not confuse "public school" with "private school". Two quite distinct terms.

To clarify - are you saying there's no correlation between income and attendance at fee paying school?

Also, same question as to Dinny - why is it not a tax break?

I'm not saying that no. But to suggest that anyone that does pay is rich is very far from the truth. Some simply forego other "luxuries" such as new cars, expensive houses etc, etc.

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:43 pm

dinny_g wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:33 pm

Nefarious wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:15 pm yet more tax breaks for rich people

It's not a tax break

This. Nor is it for "the rich"

Also, please let's not confuse "public school" with "private school". Two quite distinct terms.

Distinct? Are they though? A public school is a private school.

Nefarious wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:21 pm

dinny_g wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:33 pm

Nefarious wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:15 pm yet more tax breaks for rich people

It's not a tax break

Explain?

It's artificially classing something that isn't a charity as a charity in order to not pay tax.

ETA - perhaps I'm just seeing this differently. I don't see any real reason why charity status was allowed in the first place, other than that those in charge mostly went to these schools and look favourably upon them, and all their mates were quite appreciative of the extra cash in their pocket. To justify not putting that situation right by saying that the whole rest of the system is fucked and couldn't cope, seems a bit arse-about-face to me.

Charitable status is permitted because, in a lot of cases, they provide charitable services.

Just as a light aside to the ongoing debate, I'm sure no-one will be shocked to hear that within hours of starting on his campaign trail, a week after saying he wouldn't stand to be an MP, Farage has already been given a milkshake.

Not handed to him, obviously.

Enjoy your google image search results.

Rich B wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:49 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:43 pm

dinny_g wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:33 pm

It's not a tax break

This. Nor is it for "the rich"

Also, please let's not confuse "public school" with "private school". Two quite distinct terms.

Distinct? Are they though? A public school is a private school.

There are only 7 public schools in the UK (according to Wiki). Whilst they may be "private" the numbers are small enough to mean that the two terms are very distinct and not relative.

To answer both Dinny and Swerve:

Irrespective of the details of the new policy, up til now private school fees have been exempt for VAT because of the nominal charitable status of the schools. Those that feel the benefits are in the wealthier sections of society.

Reword my posts as you see fit.

ETA - up to 2006, all education establishments were classed as charitable. Since then, they have been required to pay lip service in the form of allowing other schools and community teams to use their facilities sometimes, and providing bursaries. It's hardly the same as cancer research or feeding starving children

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:52 pm

Rich B wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:49 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:43 pm

This. Nor is it for "the rich"

Also, please let's not confuse "public school" with "private school". Two quite distinct terms.

Distinct? Are they though? A public school is a private school.

There are only 7 public schools in the UK (according to Wiki). Whilst they may be "private" the numbers are small enough to mean that the two terms are very distinct and not relative.

if public schools are private schools, then the terms are not distinct.

All thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs.

Nefarious wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:54 pm To answer both Dinny and Swerve:

Irrespective of the details of the new policy, up til now private school fees have been exempt for VAT because of the nominal charitable status of the schools. Those that feel the benefits are in the wealthier sections of society.

Reword my posts as you see fit.

See my post about the numbers that hold charitable status. Regardless, the provision of educational services is tax exempt, whether charitable status is held or not.

Labour is not proposing to remove charitable status.

Are you planning on sending your kid to a private school Merv?

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:57 pm

Nefarious wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:54 pm To answer both Dinny and Swerve:

Irrespective of the details of the new policy, up til now private school fees have been exempt for VAT because of the nominal charitable status of the schools. Those that feel the benefits are in the wealthier sections of society.

Reword my posts as you see fit.

See my post about the numbers that hold charitable status. Regardless, the provision of educational services is tax exempt.

See my edit above. And the current proportion is 77% apparently. So, 23% who are mostly very small or faith schools are paying tax on fees correctly as the businesses they are

Sundayjumper wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:55 pm All thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs.

indeed!

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:57 pm Are you planning on sending your kid to a private school Merv?

He's already in one Zed. He struggled with class sizes as they got bigger in pre-school an started to become very introverted, and when we saw the state of the local primary (our only option) it was a no brainer (the one I referenced above that went from 1>1.5>2 form entry but still teaching in the corridors because they're over-subscribed). That saw me going back on what I'd said to the wife about private education at primary age.

I see many of my traits in him. I may be guilty of being a bit open here, but when I was his age the headteacher at my state primary told my parents he thought I was an "absent minded professor" and that I may need to go the SEN route. My parents spoke with my class teacher as they were horrified, and she said "nah - he's just too easily distracted because it's an open plan school and the class sizes are too big". I got taken out and put into a private prep and it was honestly the best thing that ever happened to me in turning me around. I only found out about the SEN thing relatively recently. Came as quite a shock.

Nefarious wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:59 pm

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:57 pm

Nefarious wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:54 pm To answer both Dinny and Swerve:

Irrespective of the details of the new policy, up til now private school fees have been exempt for VAT because of the nominal charitable status of the schools. Those that feel the benefits are in the wealthier sections of society.

Reword my posts as you see fit.

See my post about the numbers that hold charitable status. Regardless, the provision of educational services is tax exempt.

See my edit above. And the current proportion is 77% apparently. So, 23% who are mostly very small or faith schools are paying tax on fees correctly as the businesses they are

77% of 50%. And regardless, provision of educational services is tax exempt.

I don't know another way to put it. People who are, on average, on higher incomes, avoid paying tax on a commercially provided service thanks to the classifications of that service by the powers that be. Speaking off the cuff, I call that tax breaks for the rich. But choose your own semantics.