Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

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.

That equation is not necessarily true for a specific given individual but at the macro level and statistically on average it is true. The yearly fees at my old school are currently in the region of 18,000 sterling pa for a day boy and 27,000 sterling for a boarder. That means for millions of UK tax paying citizens and the majority of such at a guess such a school in unobtainable no matter how much they might scrimp and save and struggle and deny themselves and their children things. Yet the taxes these people pay, sales taxes, income taxes and all the rest in part go to subsidise things like the building of the swimming pool complex at my old school and the plantarium and the 300 seat theater and the art complex and and and. This is not right. This is not fair. It is time for real change.

[Paphitis]

They are responsible for placing millions of people below the poverty line in the last 10 years. So yeh, they are criminal bandits alright.

They had the money to really make a difference and shield the Southern States from brutal austerity. The other 24 States had enough money to really bail out those that were carrying too much debt and they would have had a great union.

But they don't have a great union. half the countries want to get the fuck out and they will eventually collapse and good riddance to them

That's because you are confused as to what the EU is all about. It's NOT A FEDERATION!
Austerity measures are the fruit of the century, look at Lebanon which is not in the EU.

Gosh. Be my guest comparing yourself to Lebanon.

The EU imo aspires to being a federation but it will never get there because of what they did during the crisis.

Whether you call it a Federation or not, they are passing laws which affect Cyprus, and you.

I would however agree with. they are no Federation like USA, or Australia or Canada. In these Federations, the Federal MPs, Senators, and lawmakers are elected by the citizens.

[erolz66]

"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.

Yes but when they pay for the provision of state schools they are paying for something they and their children benefit from. When they pay for subsidies to private schools they are being made to pay for something they themselves can not benefit from unless they can come up with 18,000 sterling a year or more. They are paying for something that only those who can afford such can benefit from.

They should not have to pay ANYTHING to help rich kids in private schools. One penny is one penny more than they should have to pay for such things.

[Paphitis]

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.

Some private schools are as far as I know considered to be charities, and also not for profit.

I do know they are not taxed, if there is a operating profit but as far as I know there isn't suppose to be. Most are run by the catholic, Anglican and Lutheran Church, but there are a few Orthodox run schools.

The super elite schools are Anglican and Lutheran. These are the most expensive schools.

Catholic schools are much more affordable and same with the few orthodox schools that exist.

Private schools are extremely important because they usually fund most of their own operational costs, but the Government has to also kick in because the parents of the kids who attend also kick in with their tax.

[erolz66]

I would however agree with. they are no Federation like USA, or Australia or Canada. In these Federations, the Federal MPs, Senators, and lawmakers are elected by the citizens.

Who elected Peter Woolcott in Australia ?

[Paphitis]

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.

The Government is obligated to pay an amount per student in the private sector.

I believe this isn't an amount greater than what they pay per student in the public sector.

the Government is obligated to fund private schools also because the parents who send their children to private schools also pay tax and are therefore also entitled to some of the education funding provided by the Government.

Private schools also charge massive fees from the parents depending on the school. Some private schools charge massive fees whilst others charge quite reasonable fees.

Some of the prestigious schools charge huge fees.

[Paphitis]

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.

Hit the nail on the head.

People think that the kids that go to the private schools are all from very wealthy and very rich families.

That is not true!

There are so many families that really do struggle and sacrifice a lot to send their kids to very elite and prestigious schools. Particularly from certain cultural backgrounds like the Indians, Greeks and Italians. A lot of families struggle to pay for the fees, and some even take loans to send their kids to these schools.

Whilst its true that some of the kids are indeed from wealthy families, it is also true that there are wealthy kids attending publicly funded schools.

So the Corbynated Chicken policy is misguided to say the least.

It's also true that families who send their kids to private schools also take the burden of the Government Funded Public School sector.

[Paphitis]

[Londonrake]

The elite and prestigious schools won’t fold.

[erolz66]

Hit the nail on the head.

People think that those that have helicopters are all from very wealthy and very rich families.

That is not true!

There are so many families that really do struggle and sacrifice a lot to have helicopters. A lot of struggle to pay for the helicopter, and some even take loans to buy helicopters.

it is also true that there are wealthy people who do not have helicopters and use the state funded motorways to get around.

It's also true that people who have helicopters take the burden off the Government Funded motorway system.