Cyprus-Forum.com

[Sotos]

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.

I don't know how things are exactly in the UK, and while I agree that private schools aren't charities, I think what matters more is the essence and not the label. In the end of the day, when you include that 25% aid and everything else that private schools get from the state, how much does a private school student cost to the state vs a public school student? Do you know or can you calculate the answer to this? If it turns out that the state is spending more money per private school student, then I would fully agree with you that the taxpayer is paying money for gifts to the rich, which is clearly unacceptable. But if the state is paying less money per private school student, then the opposite is true: The taxpayer is saving money because of the private schools, because if those schools didn't exist and the state had to pay to educate those additional students, the taxpayers would have to pay more money than they do now.

My guess is that the existence of private schools saves money to the state (but this is just an assumption, I might be wrong). If public schools aren't good enough in the UK (I wouldn't know) then make them better. If needed increase their funding. You can raise the taxes to the rich and for luxuries, for example. This would be a better approach imo.

[Sotos]

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.

High ranking politicians of the major parties are part of the ruling elite no matter where they come from. Obviously there are differences between parties, but expecting "real change" is probably way too optimistic.

It seems to me that the UK has a more obvious caste system than most other European countries. Not only the differences between rich and poor, but also queens, princes, dukes, lords etc etc. Maybe you should start by removing these anachronisms

[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.

I don't know how things are exactly in the UK, and while I agree that private schools aren't charities, I think what matters more is the essence and not the label. In the end of the day, when you include that 25% aid and everything else that private schools get from the state, how much does a private school student cost to the state vs a public school student? Do you know or can you calculate the answer to this? If it turns out that the state is spending more money per private school student, then I would fully agree with you that the taxpayer is paying money for gifts to the rich, which is clearly unacceptable. But if the state is paying less money per private school student, then the opposite is true: The taxpayer is saving money because of the private schools, because if those schools didn't exist and the state had to pay to educate those additional students, the taxpayers would have to pay more money than they do now.

My guess is that the existence of private schools saves money to the state (but this is just an assumption, I might be wrong). If public schools aren't good enough in the UK (I wouldn't know) then make them better. If needed increase their funding. You can raise the taxes to the rich and for luxuries, for example. This would be a better approach imo.

Your whole premise is based on the notion that if my old school did not get a 25% state subsidy when building it's swimming pool, then no one would send their children there and they would become an additional cost to the state. The notion is flawed and thus the justification for these state subsidies to the rich is similarly flawed. Without such subsidies the rich will still send their children to such schools thus the cost of these subsidies is just ALL cost to the state, to the ordinary person in the street and for the benefit of the richest in society. I think your notion is flawed in other ways as well than just this. Taxation just does not work on the basis of 'use'. Someone who sends their children to a state school is, using your logic, saving the state money and thus the state providing subsidies to such people in return is acceptable to you as long as the subsidies are less than the money saved. Well I chose to not have any children at all, saving the state money. So where is MY subsidy from the state for the money I save the state by making such a choice ? Taxation just does not work this way. You can not say 'well I do not use this state service, saving the state money, so therefore I should get back some of my taxes in return'. Taxation does not work this way.

I have used the swimming pool complex as one example because that was built at the time I was at the school. It is not just this 'one off' building that the state subsidies to the tune of 25 %. The list of facilities at my school is vast, facilities that benefit a tiny section of the the richest sections of society, 7% but are part paid for by the 93% that will never get any benefit from these facilitates.

Founded in 1552, Bedford School has an illustrious past. While it is a town school, its expansive and picture-perfect 50-acre estate feels country. If you were a location scout for a TV drama featuring a traditional independent boys’ school, your search would end here. The school has its own boathouse, a nature reserve, an observatory and planetarium, a concert hall, and a 300-seat theatre. The playing fields are vast and immaculate. The Great Hall is magnificent, and you don’t need to have a connection with the school to get married here. The Grade II listed 19th Century chapel is equally impressive and it’s easy to imagine a soaring rendition of Jerusalem and traditional sermons taking place here[].The music department was designed by RIBA award-winning Eric Parry Architects. There are 15 teaching rooms, several practice rooms, and a recording studio offering iMacs with Sibelius and LogicPro9. Boys regularly take up places in national youth choirs and orchestras. The school now has one of the largest school music departments in the country, offering jazz, samba, choral and chamber music groups. What do you do when you want to improve your school’s drama facilities? You transform a former Moravian church to create a £6.5 million theatre. The Quarry Theatre at St Luke’s opened in 2015 and it links the school and town both physically and artistically. The art and design department is spectacular. There’s even a 3D printer and infinity cove.

[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.

High ranking politicians of the major parties are part of the ruling elite no matter where they come from. Obviously there are differences between parties, but expecting "real change" is probably way too optimistic.

It seems to me that the UK has a more obvious caste system than most other European countries. Not only the differences between rich and poor, but also queens, princes, dukes, lords etc etc. Maybe you should start by removing these anachronisms

The numbers and % I gave were not for "High ranking politicians of the major parties" they are for ALL UK national politicians. High ranking, middle ranking, low ranking all combined. We are talking here about the upcoming election in the UK and the various manifestos the different parties are presenting to the population going in to that election. So what policies would you have in your manifesto to rid the UK of it's 'caste system' ? Ban the Monarchy ? Good luck selling such a manifesto to the likes of Grump

[erolz66]

I also want to explore this idea that my old private school and the hundreds of others like it are even "not for profit" entities and ignoring the fact that they are currently deemed as charities and receive all the benefits of such a status. My school makes profit. In a given year the amount of money it brings in from fees and other revenue sources, like renting the Grand Hall off term for private wedding functions (and without paying any business rates either), more than it spends on the costs. This difference is profit in my book. So where does this profit go ? It goes back to the Harpur trust. Who are the beneficiaries of the Harpur trust ? Certainly not the people that John Harpur intended to be the beneficiaries when he set the trust up in 1566 - namely the poor of Bedford. The beneficiaries of the profits made by Harpur Trust accrue to that 7% of the population that are wealthy enough to be able to send their children to the School and only to them. This is not my idea of a not for profit entity. Back in the day when I was involved in setting up and running a not for profit campaigning entity around internet access in the UK all the money we raised was used pursuing objectives that sought to benefit all those in the UK not just the richest 7%. This is what made such an entity legitimately not for profit. The benefit of the money made by Bedford school over its costs benefits only those that can afford the fees. See the difference ?

Private schools in the UK are not charities yet gain all the benefits of such at the expense of the general population and the advantage of the richest 7% of society that can afford them. They are not even in my book not for profit entities either.

Sotos would you be happy for the Cypriot state to use tax revenues raised from the entire population to subsidise the The English School that is only used by a tiny fraction of the wealthiest members just so long as that subsidy is less than the cost to the state of providing state education to that child ? Is that what would be in your manifesto if you were standing for election ?

Why not offer state subsidies to the super rich for the purchase and running of private helicopters on the basis that by them using such means of transport they reduce the cost to the state of providing roads ?

[Lordo]

it makes nodifference whether they make profit or not. they are private business and hence they must pay tax and vat. if th eland belongs to the state, the state reserves the right to rent the land to them too. Certainly there should not be given handouts of any kind, the the proper public schoolshad their finances slashed and need to be looked after.

Worry about the many not the few. the few can take care of themselves.

[erolz66]

Are private schools in the UK businesses, charities or not for profit entities ?

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck or mostly a duck.

Compare these two headlines / articles

https://www.ft.com/content/dbff9adc-577 ... 515a54c5b1

Luxury brands focus on China’s younger consumers

and

https://thepienews.com/news/british-ind ... -slowdown/

The China-UK “golden-age” in education is showing little sign of slowing down, with the number of British independent school branches in China expected to increase by nearly 50% in 2019, a report by Venture Education has shown.According to the ‘British Independent Schools in China: Annual Report 2019’, despite growing fears of China’s economic slowdown, 2019 will see a record 14 British independent school branches opening across the country. These will include The King’s School, Canterbury, which holds the record as the oldest continuously operating school and Shrewsbury School; one of the UK’s original seven public schools which counts Charles Darwin amongst its alumni. The report shows that at the end of 2017 there were 22 British independent school campuses operating in China. This number is expected to have more than doubled by the end of 2019, with 10 new campuses in 2018 and a further 14 openings planned in 2019. In addition, the number of British independent school brands with at least one branch in China is expected to increase by 64% in 2019.

Aggressive expansion and moving in to new and emerging growth markets. Is that something a non for profit entity does or something a business does ?

[Sotos]

Your whole premise is based on the notion that if my old school did not get a 25% state subsidy when building it's swimming pool, then no one would send their children there and they would become an additional cost to the state. The notion is flawed and thus the justification for these state subsidies to the rich is similarly flawed. Without such subsidies the rich will still send their children to such schools thus the cost of these subsidies is just ALL cost to the state, to the ordinary person in the street and for the benefit of the richest in society.

"The ordinary person in the street" pays a lot more for the rich kids in public schools, than for the rich kids in private schools.

The notion which is wrong is that "private school" = "rich" and "public school" = poor. That kind of equation is not necessarily true. Some people might not be rich, but instead of using their savings for better housing , holidays etc, they instead invest in their children's education by sending them to private schools. On the other hand some other people could be rich but they send their kids to public schools. If you want higher taxes for the rich, then raise the taxes for the rich (income tax, property tax etc), don't try to target just the subset of the rich which are actually saving the state money by sending their children to private schools, compared to the rest of the rich which are already costing the state a lot more by sending their kids to public schools.

I think your notion is flawed in other ways as well than just this. Taxation just does not work on the basis of 'use'. Someone who sends their children to a state school is, using your logic, saving the state money and thus the state providing subsidies to such people in return is acceptable to you as long as the subsidies are less than the money saved. Well I chose to not have any children at all, saving the state money. So where is MY subsidy from the state for the money I save the state by making such a choice ? Taxation just does not work this way. You can not say 'well I do not use this state service, saving the state money, so therefore I should get back some of my taxes in return'. Taxation does not work this way.

Having kids or not is an option and it is also questionable if you are saving the state money in the long run. Kids grow up, work and pay taxes, which helps the finances of the state and pay the pensions of the older generation. Providing education to all children is not optional but an obligation the state has.

[Lordo]

https://bywire.news/articles/the-labour-party-closes-polling-gap-lab-31percent-tory-38percent?fbclid=IwAR2QC0u8bo4eIoWOfXVElzO0aXcMQQ8t6-KM5WcuGulO1g3qxfM8LE1yt7Y

here we go again
tories 38%
labour 31%
gap already down to 7 points from 16.

In Wales, a poll for YouGov gives Labour a one-point lead over the Conservatives, a swing of four points.

poor tories they are in for a thrashing. where is madam cynthia to ease their pain

[Lordo]

Your whole premise is based on the notion that if my old school did not get a 25% state subsidy when building it's swimming pool, then no one would send their children there and they would become an additional cost to the state. The notion is flawed and thus the justification for these state subsidies to the rich is similarly flawed. Without such subsidies the rich will still send their children to such schools thus the cost of these subsidies is just ALL cost to the state, to the ordinary person in the street and for the benefit of the richest in society.

"The ordinary person in the street" pays a lot more for the rich kids in public schools, than for the rich kids in private schools.

The notion which is wrong is that "private school" = "rich" and "public school" = poor. That kind of equation is not necessarily true. Some people might not be rich, but instead of using their savings for better housing , holidays etc, they instead invest in their children's education by sending them to private schools. On the other hand some other people could be rich but they send their kids to public schools. If you want higher taxes for the rich, then raise the taxes for the rich (income tax, property tax etc), don't try to target just the subset of the rich which are actually saving the state money by sending their children to private schools, compared to the rest of the rich which are already costing the state a lot more by sending their kids to public schools.

I think your notion is flawed in other ways as well than just this. Taxation just does not work on the basis of 'use'. Someone who sends their children to a state school is, using your logic, saving the state money and thus the state providing subsidies to such people in return is acceptable to you as long as the subsidies are less than the money saved. Well I chose to not have any children at all, saving the state money. So where is MY subsidy from the state for the money I save the state by making such a choice ? Taxation just does not work this way. You can not say 'well I do not use this state service, saving the state money, so therefore I should get back some of my taxes in return'. Taxation does not work this way.

Having kids or not is an option and it is also questionable if you are saving the state money in the long run. Kids grow up, work and pay taxes, which helps the finances of the state and pay the pensions of the older generation. Providing education to all children is not optional but an obligation the state has.

stupid boy, what do you know about rich people and public schools. learn your subject first before you open your mouth and make a foll of yourself. rich people pay less tax than poor people if any at all you asshole. they hide their money in tax havens and pay bugger all.