this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
120 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

3159 readers
137 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
tom@feddit.uk
GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
flamingos@feddit.uk
frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
120
Private school tax breaks a 'luxury', says Phillipson (www.bbc.co.uk)
submitted 1 week ago by SleafordMod@feddit.uk to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk
61 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Do you think the government should tax private school fees?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nomad@infosec.pub 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Well, if it's just a tiny amount, why not instead use a big amount of taxes to improve public schools so private schools have nothing better to offer? And then tax wealth

[–] fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk 4 points 1 week ago

That would be ideal, yes :)

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why keep open a tax exemption that's purely for rich people who want use their money to get their children the sort of education which means they stay at the top of the socioeconomic pile?

These same people are delighted when general schools funding is at its lowest level per pupil and everyone else's kids don't have enough staff or books in their schools - even more advantage for their kids.

[–] Nomad@infosec.pub 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The concept is simple. Education good, no taxes. Education no taxes but some people need to pay them for whatever reason will probably be canceled in court. Just strait up tax wealth for everybody the same rules, then nobody can cry "discrimination"

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

You have simplified beyond the point of meaning and right into falsehood.

  1. Education isn't just taxless, it's completely free. 100% subsidised. No one needs to pay anything.
  2. You've confused education in general (good) with private education in institutions whose whole purpose, bar none, is to give the children of wealthy parents an advantage (bad) over the children of non wealthy parents.
  3. Private schools also (bad) insulate wealthy children from non-wealthy children so they never know anyone whose getting evicteed by a scummy landlord who just wants to get rid of them because they complained about the mold. They never know anyone whose patents have to scrape by with universal credit and they never develop any sense of just how badly ordinary people struggle financially or how cruel and harsh is the world of "I'm sorry, but the country can't afford to give you money for the wheelchair as well as the false limb."
  4. The PTAs of schools with wealthy parents tend to raise plenty of money for equipment. Patents with a spare thirty grand or three knocking about for education stops benefit society far more if it were state schools being supported.
  5. Good therefore tax free has no basis in logic and if the chancellor made everything good tax free, she would shut down the government.

You keep bringing up wealth tax as if it's either this or that. It isn't. I've not seen anyone here argue with taxing wealth. Do both.

Tax unnecessary inequality-perpetuating private education like every other luxury and tax wealth too. Both. Simple.

[–] Nomad@infosec.pub 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I agree with arguments 2 and 3, but 4 shows IMHO that taxing things rich parents buy anyway is not enforceable.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

No, all 4 shows is that you have to give more government funding per pupil to schools in poorer areas.