Cyprus-Forum.com

[repulsewarrior]

nobody understand the situation better.

Love this guy's thinking. Simple, easy to understand, and well founded.

...something to think about.

[Sotos]

The issue I raised was that of such private schools being granted charity status. You say nothing about that. Offer no reasons or justification as to why them having charity status is fair and correct. You simply ignore all that and start a rant about something else. Why ? Do you think it is legitimate for such schools to have charity status or not ? If you do think that is legitimate then make your case. The dictionary definition of a charity is "an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need."

Private schools are clearly not Charity, but maybe they could be categorized as "Not-for-profit" organizations (assuming the owners can not take profits). So they could still have a different tax regime than private for-profit companies. Each student in a public (i.e. non-private!) school, has an X cost to the state. Not sending your kids to public school but instead to a private school is the equivalent of donating that amount to the state to be used for the benefit of other students. Therefore more students in private schools means the government can spend more money per public school student.

If you tax private schools that tax would be passed to the parents who send their kids to private schools. So essentially you would be taxing (punishing) them for doing something which benefits the state and the public school students.

How many private schools are there in the UK now? Imagine if those who send their kids to those schools tomorrow said: "OK, we will be sending our kids to public schools from now on". How many more public schools would have to be build by the state and how much more money the state would have to spend to educate all these additional students? All that money would have to come out of the budget that currently goes to the existing public schools and existing public school students. So everybody is worst off.

[cyprusgrump]

The issue I raised was that of such private schools being granted charity status. You say nothing about that. Offer no reasons or justification as to why them having charity status is fair and correct. You simply ignore all that and start a rant about something else. Why ? Do you think it is legitimate for such schools to have charity status or not ? If you do think that is legitimate then make your case. The dictionary definition of a charity is "an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need."

Private schools are clearly not Charity, but maybe they could be categorized as "Not-for-profit" organizations (assuming the owners can not take profits). So they could still have a different tax regime than private for-profit companies. Each student in a public (i.e. non-private!) school, has an X cost to the state. Not sending your kids to public school but instead to a private school is the equivalent of donating that amount to the state to be used for the benefit of other students. Therefore more students in private schools means the government can spend more money per public school student.

If you tax private schools that tax would be passed to the parents who send their kids to private schools. So essentially you would be taxing (punishing) them for doing something which benefits the state and the public school students.

How many private schools are there in the UK now? Imagine if those who send their kids to those schools tomorrow said: "OK, we will be sending our kids to public schools from now on". How many more public schools would have to be build by the state and how much more money the state would have to spend to educate all these additional students? All that money would have to come out of the budget that currently goes to the existing public schools and existing public school students. So everybody is worst off.

Excellent post!

See also...

Labour's plan for private schools based on 'desire to damage'

Labour plans to integrate private schools into the state sector will result in larger classes and burgeoning costs, the head of a group representing Britain’s leading independent schools has said.

Fiona Boulton, the chair of the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference (HMC), said that Labour’s pledge last week to endorse a series of measures that will effectively abolish private schools was based on “ignorance and the desire to damage”.

Boulton was due to address about 300 heads from many of the country’s most expensive independent schools at the HMC autumn conference in London on Monday as the battle over the future of Britain’s private schools gathers momentum.

Last week, the Labour party voted in favour of new policies that would strip private schools of charitable status, add VAT to fees, restrict their pupils’ access to higher education and redistribute their endowments, investments and properties to the state sector.

Disgusting!

Wouldn't it be better to commit to improving the standard of State Education so that parents wouldn't feel the need to spend their hard-earned sending their children to private schools...?

[Lordo]

The issue I raised was that of such private schools being granted charity status. You say nothing about that. Offer no reasons or justification as to why them having charity status is fair and correct. You simply ignore all that and start a rant about something else. Why ? Do you think it is legitimate for such schools to have charity status or not ? If you do think that is legitimate then make your case. The dictionary definition of a charity is "an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need."

Private schools are clearly not Charity, but maybe they could be categorized as "Not-for-profit" organizations (assuming the owners can not take profits). So they could still have a different tax regime than private for-profit companies. Each student in a public (i.e. non-private!) school, has an X cost to the state. Not sending your kids to public school but instead to a private school is the equivalent of donating that amount to the state to be used for the benefit of other students. Therefore more students in private schools means the government can spend more money per public school student.

If you tax private schools that tax would be passed to the parents who send their kids to private schools. So essentially you would be taxing (punishing) them for doing something which benefits the state and the public school students.

How many private schools are there in the UK now? Imagine if those who send their kids to those schools tomorrow said: "OK, we will be sending our kids to public schools from now on". How many more public schools would have to be build by the state and how much more money the state would have to spend to educate all these additional students? All that money would have to come out of the budget that currently goes to the existing public schools and existing public school students. So everybody is worst off.

Excellent post!

See also...

Labour's plan for private schools based on 'desire to damage'

Labour plans to integrate private schools into the state sector will result in larger classes and burgeoning costs, the head of a group representing Britain’s leading independent schools has said.

Fiona Boulton, the chair of the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference (HMC), said that Labour’s pledge last week to endorse a series of measures that will effectively abolish private schools was based on “ignorance and the desire to damage”.

Boulton was due to address about 300 heads from many of the country’s most expensive independent schools at the HMC autumn conference in London on Monday as the battle over the future of Britain’s private schools gathers momentum.

Last week, the Labour party voted in favour of new policies that would strip private schools of charitable status, add VAT to fees, restrict their pupils’ access to higher education and redistribute their endowments, investments and properties to the state sector.

Disgusting!

Wouldn't it be better to commit to improving the standard of State Education so that parents wouldn't feel the need to spend their hard-earned sending their children to private schools...?

get out man, you will not be missed. take some medication to calm yourself down.

who said anythning about aboshing them, there is no such policy or plan. being of private business, they will be treated as such. if they wish to apply to join the national education system, they will i am sure be considered favourably, but the usual regualtions apply regarding education and all that.

it is time to stop descrimination against 90% of our children from further education or the job market. i wish thay would just close them down but they are not going to do that which i am equally disgusted over.

somebody pass the sick bag.

[erolz66]

Private schools are clearly not Charity, but maybe they could be categorized as "Not-for-profit" organizations (assuming the owners can not take profits).

They are clearly not Charities yet currently in law in the UK they are registered as such which is entirely the point. Being registered as a not for profit entity offers some limited exemptions on VAT on inputs but the exemptions for charities are far far greater than these. The even bigger difference is the entitlement for gift aid that only applies to charities and not to non profit organisations. Like in the example I gave with my school and the building of the new indoor pool complex. For every £1 gifted to the school for this improvement, the government, under gift aid rules then provide another 25 pence from the treasury, meaning tax revenues. Not just income tax but also from sales taxes and all other taxes. They only get this money because they are accepted as Charities, something you accept they clearly are not. It is unfair. It is unjust. It is time for real change. Only one party is brave enough to put such a change up front in its manifesto. Removing these obscene tax gifts to the well off to super rich will not lead to significantly more pupils having to enter the state system. It just means when they want to build a swimming pool complex for the exclusive use of their pupils they will have to pay the fair full cost for that facility and not just pay 75% of it with the general population, the vast majority of which will not benefit from the new pool complex, picking up the tab for the other 25%.

So again I ask what is the justification for this ? Nothing you have written so far Sotos has addressed this imo.

[erolz66]

How many private schools are there in the UK now?

Around 7% of the UK population go to private schools. Back in the 1979, around half of all MPs from the main three parties had been to private school. That included nearly three quarters of Conservatives and more than half of the Lib Dem MPs. Labour has always had a far lower proportion of privately educated MPs, but it has nevertheless remained significantly above the 7 percent national average. Things are less bad today but still MP's from private school are around 29% of all MP's, whilst only 7 % of the wider population. Split by party Conservatives around 45%, lib dems around 29% and Labour around 13%. The only party where the proportion is in line with the national average is the SNP.

I find it next to impossible to believe that this discrepancy in representation of private school students, historic and still prevalent today has no connection to the egregiously unfair awarding of charity status to these schools. Let us indeed then fight this next election on a 'people vs the elites' footing but let us properly understand who the elites really are and how they rig the system to their advantage at the expense of the wider population. Johnson, Mogg et all ARE the elite.

It is time for real change.

[Pyrpolizer]

nobody understand the situation better.

Love this guy's thinking. Simple, easy to understand, and well founded.

...something to think about.

This guy is a Greek Erolz

[Lordo]

so what if he is griiiik. there are some very decent griiiiiks in this world. he is not just a griik, he is decent human being too and he cares for all the poor pibol in the world not just griiiiks.

this will repeat a few times for the b'stard fella. he will get a lot of booing and we all know this narcissishits likehim cannot take it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/31/cowardly-boris-johnson-booed-in-cambridge-hospital-trip?fbclid=IwAR2iq1Q2eDEcsFGXEfXDqzxgvwpnwiiApZOrGS2JznWYSG9gRC2b2-Qp5l8

[Lordo]

what kind of president accuses those who do not agree with him supporting the other side. is that not the most fascistdick thing you will ever here.
either you are with usor against us.

no mr presdient go fak yourself you stupid asshole.

[Lordo]

can any brexshithead expalin why
1. old nige is not standing in the election - he is not scared is he?
2. why no10 not released the report about russian interference in 2016 referendum. the normal thing is for the report to be handed to no 10 and 10 working days later, it should be published. but no 10 it seems will not release the report till after the election
3. to hell with it, lets ask another one. what was cummings doing working in russia for 3 years? what was his role, anybody knows?