Sunak V Starmer

Yes charitable bequests going back hundreds of years and at no cost to the taxpayers?

But being in receipt of a charitable bequest doesn’t bestow charitable status on a private school does it? Please can someone tell me what private schools actually do to deserve being termed charities.

There are tax benefits for individuals from making charitable bequests.

I don't see how that alters the situation re schools being taxable charities

Ah, the plot thickens … the individual making the charitable bequest also gets a tax break as well as the private school charity! So what makes a private school a charity?

Well one of the requirements of an entity to meet charitable status is to benefit the public good as a whole.

Public good meaning sufficient level of the public benefit.

Charitable benefit should not allow or give rise to more than incidental benefit. NCVO

Not sure they meet that requirement. And to add insult to injury, those not able to receive the benefits for reason of lack of wealth, have to fork out through their tax to assist those who can afford to pay.

When schools were set up by benefactors 400 years ago as in the case of the major schools private schools, the benefactors were not claiming tax relief as 400 years ago there wasn’t any.
The State has benefited greatly from not having had to fund education for hundreds of thousands of pupils for years and years.

A Conservative general election candidate has today quit after it emerged that he made lurid sexual comments about women.

Magistrate Sam Trask pulled out of the race to stand in Bridgend, Wales after it was revealed that he once boasted his favourite bra size measuring technique was “hand sizing them by feel”.

They don’t seem to have matured much beyond a 13 year old.

ronib

When schools were set up by benefactors 400 years ago as in the case of the major schools private schools, the benefactors were not claiming tax relief as 400 years ago there wasn’t any.
The State has benefited greatly from not having had to fund education for hundreds of thousands of pupils for years and years.

400 years ago there was very little schooling - if any for the poor.

Free State education didn’t begin until just before the start if the last century.

So your hundreds of years simply don’t stand up.

Wwm2 you clearly don’t know much about public schools or their history.

Really ronib comparing 400 years ago with today If we haven’t moved on since then, we really are in trouble!

Private schools aren’t going to cease to exist as a result of this change either - it’s hardly the end of private schooling in the UK.

LizzieDrip are you being deliberately obtuse?

Casdon

Private schools aren’t going to cease to exist as a result of this change either - it’s hardly the end of private schooling in the UK.

No. The wealthy will still be able to afford it.

They don’t seem to have matured much beyond a 13 year old

You can say that again WW! In fact, even most 13 year olds today wouldn’t come out with such crass comments - I know my grandsons wouldn’t!

ronib No!

Ahhh - so you are now going to suggest that charitable schools were set up specifically for the poor?

That was when they were real charities.

What happened in 1967 was a purely ideological and politically
motivated.

Rude

Mollygo yes the wealthy will continue to have access to private education if not in the Uk then in schools overseas.

Germanshepherdsmum

Here’s a story about the school Casdon. Sorry it’s from the DM - the Telegraph article is behind a paywall. It also emphasises that the fee-paying parents are ordinary people, not rich.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13486745/Private-school-one-pupils-special-needs-blames-Labours-VAT-policy-forcing-closure-headteacher-says-parents-unable-afford-fee-hike.html

But they are not exactly poor. The money spent on school fees could be spent on coaching if required, outings, books, etc and still some left for holidays for the whole family. To my mind many people send their children to private school because they they will meet a better class of child.

Sometimes not all the children in the same family can go to private school. Some of them will have to be state educated.

An old friend went to state school whilst her two brothers went to private school. Her mother expected her to leave school at 16 but the head teacher persuaded her to let my friend stay on to the 6th form. The parents then had to be persuaded to let her go into articles, which at that time had to be paid for. I suspect that this attitude would not prevail now.

When I met her, mid twenties, I was in articles and she had been a qualified ACA for a number of years. She went on to do great things. I didn't - not especially ambitious but was doing something (finally) that I enjoyed.

Mollygo

Casdon

Private schools aren’t going to cease to exist as a result of this change either - it’s hardly the end of private schooling in the UK.

No. The wealthy will still be able to afford it.

And the schools will no doubt continue to offer scholarships, which is often part of the terms of their endowments.

ronib

Mollygo yes the wealthy will continue to have access to private education if not in the Uk then in schools overseas.

Status quo then. It’s isn’t going to be the public schools that are affected, it’s going to be the small, already struggling private schools, surely. I think we have to be realistic here about what the impact will actually be rather than pretending that this is the demise of independent schools.

ronib

When schools were set up by benefactors 400 years ago as in the case of the major schools private schools, the benefactors were not claiming tax relief as 400 years ago there wasn’t any.
The State has benefited greatly from not having had to fund education for hundreds of thousands of pupils for years and years.

I'm so intrigued by this latest flight of ronib fancy.

Do please explain to us how the state benefitted from not having to fund education for 'hundreds and thousands of pupils' for years and years?

Of course, latterly the state has been been overwhelmingly grateful that it hasn't had to pay the Eton fees for a very significant number of our country's leaders, I can see that, but do take us back further into history 😆

Most historical charitable bequests were made in the hope of shortening the bequeather's time in purgatory. Might not have been a tax avoidance measure, but still made with the prospect of a significant benefit to the bequeather.

I think we all know this will not be the demise of the independent school. Yes, a small number may ‘go under’ for a variety of reasons, and those children will be welcomed into state schools.

Independent school fees have risen well above inflation for the past 10 years, without any intervention from a Labour government. Has there been an exodus of children leaving private education and ‘overwhelming’ the state sector. Not that I’ve noticed - and I’ve only recently retired from the state sector.

LizzieDrip

I think we all know this will not be the demise of the independent school. Yes, a small number may ‘go under’ for a variety of reasons, and those children will be welcomed into state schools.

Independent school fees have risen well above inflation for the past 10 years, without any intervention from a Labour government. Has there been an exodus of children leaving private education and ‘overwhelming’ the state sector. Not that I’ve noticed - and I’ve only recently retired from the state sector.

They may be welcome, into an overcrowded, underfunded state sector. Oh I forgot Starmer is going to recruit an extra 6,500 teachers, from where I would like to know. You cannot force anyone to teach, Nurse, or join any of the public service jobs, unless their is a vocation to do so. You need that to work in the NHS or teaching profeesions. Or will he bribe them with pay offers and get people in just for the money, that may work for a while, but can't see staff staying for 30 40 years as my generation did, if they have no feel for the work.