Education

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 14° London Hi 15°C / Lo 8°C

Tax threat could hit hundreds of public schools

£100m of benefit in jeopardy after dramatic Charity Commission ruling

By Richard Garner, Education Editor

Leading independent schools, such as Eton, say charitable status is vital for their survival

GETTY IMAGES

Leading independent schools, such as Eton, say charitable status is vital for their survival

Hundreds of independent schools will be forced to raise their fees to take in more pupils from poorer backgrounds, following a landmark ruling by the Charity Commission. Two of the first five schools investigated by the watchdog have been told they fail to meet tough new standards for retaining their charitable status – worth about £100m in tax breaks across the sector.

The leaders of Britain's 2,500 private schools fear the verdicts could be a foretaste of what is in store for all of them. Most independent schools, including Eton, Harrow and Winchester, have charitable status they say is vital for their survival.

The two schools singled out by the commissioners – St Anselm's in Bakewell, Derbyshire, and Highfield Priory in Preston, Lancashire – are ranked among the top 100 private preparatory schools. They have been given 12 months to start doing more to help disadvantaged children in their communities, or risk losing their charity status altogether.

A spokeswoman for the commission said: "All charity trustees are being required to ensure they carry out their charity's aims and for the public benefit." However, she said no decision had yet been taken about how it would proceed with future public benefit assessments.

David Lyscom, the head of the Independent Schools Council, an umbrella group representing 1,280 independent schools in the UK and Ireland, said the watchdog's ruling would inevitably lead to higher charges for most parents who paid full fees for their children to attend private schools.

He added: "We are deeply disappointed with the approach taken by the Charity Commission – which focuses on the amount of means-tested bursaries provided by each school.

"The implication of the commission's findings appears to be that many schools must aim to provide a significant but unspecified proportion of their turnover in full bursaries. This will inevitably lead to fee increases for the vast majority of parents, putting the benefits of an independent education beyond the reach of a greater number of children."

The Charity Commission's report on St Anselm's revealed that the 250-pupil school provided only two bursaries, up to the value of 90 per cent of fees. This cost £20,000, or 1 per cent of its total income. It also provided £30,800 in assistance to nine children of armed forces personnel through a Ministry of Defence grant, and scholarships offering a 10 per cent discount on fees to a further seven children. The report concluded that the school was "not currently operating for the public benefit".

Highfield Priory did not provide any bursaries, the commissioners found, concluding that it did "not ensure that people in poverty are not excluded from the opportunity to benefit". The school, however, insisted that it kept fees as low as it could – £5,975 a year – so that as wide a range of children as possible could benefit from its tuition. Simon Northcott, the headmaster of St Anselm's, said: "[The commissioners] haven't told us what they want us to achieve. We believe we can play ball with what they want but it obviously makes a difference whether they want us to go up to spending 2 per cent of our income or 6 or 7 per cent."

He said a recent fundraising drive to provide the school with more resources had not been as successful as was hoped because of the recession. The only other way to find extra money for bursaries would be to raise fees at a time when families were suffering from the downturn.

Today, the Charity Commission publishes a report setting out the key issues and offering information on how charitable organisations can meet its public-benefit test. Under a section on fee-charging, which affects private schools, it states that a charity which charges high fees that many people cannot afford must demonstrate that "there is sufficient opportunity for people who cannot afford these fees to benefit in a material way that is related to the charity's aims".

It sets out a number of ways that charities might fund fee assistance, including income from fees, from specific funds set aside for that purpose, using funds from a third party and setting fees at a "slightly higher" level in order to create a fund to assist those who cannot afford them.

But Mr Lyscom warned that small schools which had tight budgets could find themselves vulnerable in the future – a rise in fees might mean some parents could not afford to keep sending their child to the school.

He also condemned the commission for failing to specify how many bursaries a school needed to provide to meet the test. "The schools are being found guilty without knowing what innocent looks like," he added.

But Dame Suzi Leather, chairman of the Charity Commission, said: "The majority of the charities we have assessed are already providing public benefit in a variety of ways. The other charities are capable of doing so and remain registered but they must now agree with us in the next 12 months the changes that are needed."

In all, 12 charities acted as "guinea pigs" for the pilot inspections and eight passed the test. These included Manchester Grammar School, the only school to volunteer for the pilot.

The other two charities to fail were fee-paying residential care homes.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Charitable works!
[info]bod43 wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 01:51 am (UTC)
Well, my view is quite simple.

Do charitable work or - spin on that dickheads.

Fake charities are to be despised and should be dismantled.

I see no difficulty where a school is actually doing charitable work. Those doing otherwise should expect to be correctly identified to be businesses and should expect to pay business taxes. What other just outcome is possible?




[info]bfreesun wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 04:06 am (UTC)
How can a school be a charity if it does nothing charitable?
Eton a charity? At those prices?
It's charity for the wealthy.
[info]hawkda wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 05:21 am (UTC)
As always "Middle britain" is hit.

Parent who currently are stretched and make great sacrifices to give thier children as best education as they can will find that it is put out of reach.

The very wealthy will be minorly inconvenienced, but the aspiring classes - who already fund state sector education through taxes, and pay again for their own children's eductaion. will be hurt.

[info]rants_a_lot wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 11:15 am (UTC)
Middle Britain will not be hit, all the schools have to do is actually perform the function of a charity, if they don't then the school must be a business.
Another QUANGO?
[info]sportingmac wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 05:28 am (UTC)
Is the Charity Commission another money-guzzling quango? I read that they operate under the charities act and is vested with legal powers relating to:

the registration of charities;
giving advice and conferring regulatory consents e.g. making schemes and orders; and
taking action where there is or may be mismanagement e.g. powers to institute inquiries, removing or suspending trustees, appointing interim managers, protecting charity property and/or other assets.

...couldn't spot the bit where they had authority to alter or amend taxation laws though.

Another quango - anyone care to enlighten me - anyone form the Charities Commission care to expand on their tax making laws?
Re: Another QUANGO?
[info]nordiccelt wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 08:18 am (UTC)
Ummm...

Let's make it simple for you then shall we...

They decide who can be registered as a charity....
If an organisation that charges money is not registered as a charity then it is a business...

If the Charities Commission decides a school is not a charity and kicks them off the register then that school will be regarded as a business...

Businesses are subject to tax...

So, you see you the Charities Commission doesn't have to have tax making laws... they just have to apply current law and do their job....

Now that wasn't too hard was it?
Re: Another QUANGO? - [info]nixcails - Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 09:25 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Another QUANGO? - [info]nordiccelt - Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 08:19 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Another QUANGO? - [info]sportingmac - Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 08:27 am (UTC) Expand
Charity
[info]falanf wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 06:05 am (UTC)
The whole concept of "charity" has become a bit of a scam. We now have people climbing mountains, running in races etc. for "charity" when they are clearly doing something they want to do but probably couldn't do otherwise. Why not simply donate all the money they would spend on the trip to a worthy cause and just stay at home? Not so much fun, though is it? And now we have places like Eton etc pretending to be charities! Maybe they once were, but not any more. It's time to define the whole "charitable status" concept. Perhaps some of the parents who get reduced fees for their kids school due to its charitable status are just as guilty as our "expenses scam" MPs. The best bit though are the schools that reportedly say "Charitable status is vital for our survival", as if it was their right to survive. What they really need is a dose of reality.
[info]cm999 wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 07:07 am (UTC)
About time too. Calling these private business charities was always a joke. I suspect that they were allowed to claim charitable status as it suited the law makers of the land and want they wanted personally. These schools are businesses in the business of education and should be taxed accordingly
Charitable Status
[info]c15hrh wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 07:13 am (UTC)
It is all well and good for these schools to be forced to take in more disadvantaged children, however what will protect these 'lucky' children from the years of humiliation and bullying they will face from their elitist peers? All the private/public schools should be closed down and then the state system would have enough teachers to choose from to cover for all the incompetent teachers who will soon be sacked. Everyone should have an equal start in life.
Re: Charitable Status
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 09:34 am (UTC)
Yup, let's all start off at the same level - drag everyone down. Unfortunately the fact is that it is private schools + grammars who have kept up many of the standards in British education and provided choice - languages from an appropriately early age, separate sciences at GCSE, real sports across the curriculum, CCF - the list goes on. A number of state schools do a magnificent job as well (actually pretty amazing given their access to resources) but a lot do not. While the reasons for the drop in 'hard' science and technology degree graduates is complex, what is clear is that 'hard' science, mathematics and engineering students are supplied by private schools at a level that should make everyone ask 'why is the state failing' and a sector of the education that accounts for 7% of children supply as many as 50% of all the entrants to many science and engineering programmes?

My daughter attended a state primary school and enjoyed it enormously, although the whole year was held back at the end of their primary career as the school desperately coached for SATs (naturally they were excellent results), but failed to provide any appropriate introduction to languages other than English, leading a number of parents to form a small consortium to pay for teaching in German - the beginning of a slippery slope. In practice parents had no ability to influence anything at the school at all. The response from the head and the governors was always 'our hands are tied by the national curriculum and we do get good results, goodbye'.

My daughter then went on to a 'good' local comprehensive, Marlwood in South Gloucestershire. It was a disaster. In her first 3 years more than 1/3 of her teachers were supply teachers, often coming in on very short postings. There was little continuity. Science lessons were a mess - a number of boys were allowed to run a low level disruption/bullying operation ('borrowing' pencils, harassing the girls in their class) that was tolerated by the school. The school bus was a place to bully and be bullied (but naturally not a concern of either the school - no responsibility, or the council - run by a private company mate). Again, GCSE results were good (should have been for a school in a predominantly wealthy area of the country) and the school - teachers and governors saw no reason to change. (In retrospect this could simply have been the beginning of a decline we were witnessing as indicators - gcse results - have sharply dropped in the last four years).

So reluctantly we took the plunge and paid to move to a small (about 1/3 of the number of pupils as Marlwood) private school. The change was refreshing. The school had the time, the resources and the accountability necessary to challenge all of the girls. Rather than ignoring children who were going to get 5 A-C grades at GCSE and only concentrating on the very high flyers and those who could be boosted into the 'good for school league tables zone' all children were encouraged to reach their full potential. In addition, the school did not fall into the 'economy of scale' argument, retaining a size that meant teachers actually knew who the children were! The school had the freedom to innovate, in languages, exams (International Bac for example), community service (50 hours required for children in the upper school) etc...

Re: Charitable Status - [info]c15hrh - Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 01:57 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Charitable Status - [info]rwthplb - Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 06:53 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Charitable Status - [info]chaps25 - Friday, 17 July 2009 at 05:03 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Charitable Status - [info]chaps25 - Friday, 17 July 2009 at 04:46 pm (UTC) Expand
Class politics is driving this
[info]the100thidiot wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 08:03 am (UTC)
The sums of money involved are trivial, particularly once the inevitably massive costs of the "quangos" doing the reviewing are factored in. It's simply class warfare to try and eradicate independent schooling.

Perhaps all parents with children at independent schools should pretend to play ball with this aim - and apply to their LEA for a state school place for their children. Be interesting to see how the government coped with that ...
Re: Class politics is driving this
[info]montymontezuma wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 09:19 am (UTC)
So this is being driven by class politics is it? So what? My children attended state schools, as did my husband & I - even if we could've have afforded for them to go to an independent school, we wouldn't have. If that makes it a class decision, so be it. I am proud to have been working class, to have been the first member of my family to go to university - I am proud to have not had an elitist, paid for upbringing to enable me to do so. That is a testimony to my family's love and support.

Similarly, my husband won a scholarship to Haberdashers - and turned it down. He still got to Oxford via the state school route, so big deal for Haberdashers. As a teacher and lecturer, he has always refused to apply for vacancies in independent schools, preferring to serve the system that enabled him to achieve.

The simple fact is, if independent schools closed their doors tomorrow the state would have to cope because they have a legal duty to do so. Parents who send their children to independent schools elect to do so - so if you want to pay then pay, don't hide behind charitable status to offset fees. There is no argument about having to paying taxes as well as paying school fees - you pays your money... as they say. If independent schools wish to offer scholarships they should do so in the true spirit of charity, not as a honey pot.

I pay my taxes to ensure the right to health care, education, social security, etc. for all because it is the right thing to do not as a bargaining chip. So if that attitude makes me a class warrior - good.
Re: Class politics is driving this - [info]the100thidiot - Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 10:34 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Class politics is driving this - [info]montymontezuma - Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 12:17 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Class politics is driving this - [info]johncmullen1960 - Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 04:15 pm (UTC) Expand
RE: Sportingmac's comment
[info]nordiccelt wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 08:20 am (UTC)
Ummm...

Let's make it simple for you then shall we...

They decide who can be registered as a charity....
If an organisation that charges money is not registered as a charity then it is a business...

If the Charities Commission decides a school is not a charity and kicks them off the register then that school will be regarded as a business...

Businesses are subject to tax...

So, you see you the Charities Commission doesn't have to have tax making laws... they just have to apply current law and do their job....

Now that wasn't too hard was it?
Public Schools Charitable Status
[info]dalstonbod wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 08:22 am (UTC)
The class warriors of old labour must be rubbing their hands in glee. Finally they have manufactured a back door with which to berate and undermine private education in the UK. In a nirvana moment they can visualize all those "coached" and "priveleged" children of the middle classes forced to attend the local comprehensives and be subjected to uber PC social engineering where the system will actively conspire to restrict their life opportunities simply because they happened to be born slightly on "Have" side of the equation rather than the "have not". What next, a "Public Interest" tax on those who live in nice houses to fleece their nest eggs to re-invest in sink estates or forcing families going on expensive long haul holidays to take an underprivileged child with them to broaden their horizons? Apologies I was being ironic but I can see a high % of hard core indy readers stomping round their houses shouting "Yes, yes"!
Charities and Not-for-profits
[info]tallise wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 08:38 am (UTC)
As I see it, there are charities, not-for-profits, and businesses. Each should have its own tax regime, decreasingly advantageous in terms of public subsidy. The Charities Commission is right to clamp down, but it is not right when it refuses to make clear where the boundary of 'public interest' lies.
Math
[info]gollymolly44 wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 08:46 am (UTC)
Mr Lyscom says "This will inevitably lead to fee increases for the vast majority of parents, putting the benefits of an independent education beyond the reach of a greater number of children."
Er, no. Assuming class sizes stay the same as fees go up, then the same number of children will benifit from private education. Mr Ls lack of logic can only be explained if he meant to add the words "of the right type" after the word "children"!
I sent my kids to private schools because I couldn't abide the lack of discipline or sports activity in the local state schools. But I was willing to pay for this from my own pocket and did not expect the taxpayer to subsidize my contrary choice. Everybody else who makes this choice should do the same.

Re: Math
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 07:18 pm (UTC)
Err yes. Can you do arithmetic can you do reasonable assumption. Costs go up. Three responses
1. pay more to maintain student-teacher ratios (and more importantly small school size)
2. pay the same and see student-teacher ratios deteriorate
3. drop out
Given the economic pressures many families are under, 2/3 looks more likely with school sizes increasing to meet nebulous 'economy of scale' arguments. 2 while they can maintain it, 3 where schools refuse to compromise class and school size.
Please re-read your post - it really should not have been let out in public. Do think before you post.
More dumbing down ...
[info]sportingmac wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 08:47 am (UTC)
...I just love this social engineering by taxes - it has long been this useless slimy governments only answer to every crisis - tax it. Is there a crisis here - well frankly no - so why tax it? Close down all good schools and uneducate uneducate uneducate seems to be teh battle cry here. Thank God they only have less than a year left. What destruction can they do in that time - fearful to ask.

If you think private education is divisive then you haven't been to school yourselves for sometime. I loved my secondary school - full of kids that didn't want to be there and disrupted others who wanted to be. And what happened to choice - are you taking that away from me too - twats.

I'll pay the VAT just to stay out of the current government sponsored social engineering programme. Up yours Gordie.
And another point..
[info]sportingmac wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 08:51 am (UTC)
...it is a bizarre twist, Dame Suzi, a respected and high-profile public figure who was appointed to the commission in 2006 to steer through the politically sensitive charity reforms, admitted that she herself had decided to absent herself from all decisions regarding the charitable status of schools. As she had a daughter at private school, she felt her involvement might constitute a conflict of interest....

Poacher turned gamekeeper - or - just a memeber of a quango protecting her interests.
Re: And another point..
[info]colinru wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 07:08 pm (UTC)
She might be high-profile but I am not sure about the respected. It might be true in Islington but not in my neck-of-the -woods.
Grave Reservations
[info]billdavy1949 wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 09:10 am (UTC)
First off, an admission. I went to a public school.

I am not sure cherry-picking the best students, as grammar schools do, is a good way to a better society. I am assuming, of course, that we want a better society.

But I would rather close the private schools. Not because I want to hinder the children who now go there but because I want those pushy caring visionary parents to put their back into making the state schools work better.

As for faith schools and academies, they made me ashamed of Labour.

Still, at least we did not get the Super casinos.
Re: Grave Reservations
[info]colinru wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 07:07 pm (UTC)
It would be nice if "Pushy" Parents could change the State Schools but, from what I have read, it is almost impossible to do that as Parents have no control over the School (even as a Governor, it is next to impossible).
Re: Grave Reservations - [info]rwthplb - Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 07:27 pm (UTC) Expand
Good thing too
[info]bobbellinhell wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 09:26 am (UTC)
Why was private education for the ultra-rich getting a subsidy from the state in the first place?
Public school Charities
[info]alstubbino wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 09:30 am (UTC)
Its just ridiculous.
The charitable status of private schools,
Is anachronistic to say the least.
Offering the chance to reduce fees,
For some ' poorer ' people,
Is nothing but a sop.
This privilege, granted to the most privileged,
Should be totally withdrawn.
This will force the bourgeois, middle class,
Always the experts in self interest,
Back into the state system.
In no time we would have the finest,
State education system in the world!
Re: Public school Charities
[info]sportingmac wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 10:19 am (UTC)
..yeah - right.
Re: Public school Charities - [info]colinru - Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 07:09 pm (UTC) Expand
re: Charitable Status
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 09:35 am (UTC)
Not surprisingly I don't regret the fees, I would have liked to pay off the mortgage but I don't think I miss the skiing holidays that many of our neigbours and friends prefer to spend their money on (we do live in a prosperous parr of the county), I don't miss the 'nice' car or other expensive holidays. I do appreciate the fact that my daughter had the opportunity to go on to study classics (as well as maths and philosophy) at A level, I appreciate the way she enjoyed school after several miserable years, I appreciate the fact that the school turned out confident, capable scientists (in her A Level year all of the girls studying physics went on to do good engineering degrees), I appreciate being able to talk to teachers who actually knew her, I appreciated the fact that she wanted to follow up on a couple of additional languages in 6th form and was given the opportunity to join GCSE classes in order to do so. I would have got none of that from the state sector where we live, just a grim determination to stick to government stricture, ensuring minimum standards for all by dragging everyone down.

Lip service is given to improvement and choice in the public sector. It is a sham, schools have become too large, good schools prevented from innovating, poor schools not supported (for god's sake taking money away from a failing school is not going to help the kids), there is little joined up thinking - even from primary to secondary schools, let alone wider social support. The idea that scrapping good schools in the private sector will force improvement in the public fast enough not ruin lives is a fantasy. If it is a fantasy in a rich area such as the part of South Glos I live in, it is bizarre for an inner city school.

I have acted as a governor for two inner city schools - a specialist sports school and a technical school as well as mentoring science students. Despite their best efforts, a combination of a lack of resources, poor social support, inappropriate government standards and a demoralised teaching staff were inevitably going to fail many of our students. Even given enthusiastic support from local industry and the two universities in the city without more joined up thinking and that does not men centralisation.

Until that happens parent who do not have the opportunity to manipulate the schools their children attend (look at New Labour politicians as arch examples of that approach to 'do what I say not what I do') must have the right to do what is best for their children.

The deterioration in education is linked to the lack of accountability in many public services. Until we begin to fix that, the UK education system will remain a mess with only a relatively small amount of the public secotr and the private sector providing education that our children deserve.
Re: Charitable Status
[info]sportingmac wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 10:21 am (UTC)
..best post today - well said.
[info]mowfalmighty wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 09:46 am (UTC)
This is great news, there are far too many institutions these days cynically claiming charity status for the taxbreaks and being in no way charitable whatsoever. Lets face it, the only interest public schools show toward their local communities is when they want to hire domestic staff and gardeners. As far as giving something back to the local community, well I suppose they have been known to provide the odd fresh faced choirboy for 'use' by the local clergy (once the housemasters have had their fun of course).
Hardly justifies Gift Aid status does it.
Tax the bounders wot wot!
[info]sportingmac wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 10:23 am (UTC)
Numpty - it isn't about tax - it's about choice and NuLabour social engineering.

PS - you do have a big gob!! - but need some fillings I see.
(no subject) - [info]colinru - Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 07:10 pm (UTC) Expand
You have to have A PARTY.
[info]chipmem1 wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 10:50 am (UTC)

You only sing when your winning. Economics rule and
no more money to buy middle class vote, no more money
to buy the female vote and as labour has no food bite the dogs
hand off.........

and people are.

The easy meal, paper hats and the cake party has ended .

Much much worse times ahead.
Private Schooling
[info]jimhogg wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 10:55 am (UTC)
Many years ago I heard Dylan sing "money doesn't talk, it swears" and being more than a little naive I thought he was wrong. I was wrong of course. It does, sometimes politely, sometime with venom. Those who deploy it to their advantage and the advantage of their children surely recognise this very clearly and though they may rationalise it in the most straightforward of terms: that they're only doing their best for their child - which seems perfectly admirable on the face of it - the result is that we have a society which is riven with injustice in terms of power, wealth, and privilege. If, as a contributor below suggest, it means dragging everyone down to the same level, then so be it. We might then see some of that wealth, power and privilege utilised to improve the quality of the state system, by ensuring that it has the best teachers at its disposal, smaller class sizes, and perhaps a very important consideration, the awareness for many of the kids who are gifted and ambitious that they wouldn't be facing hugely advantaged kids from the private sector in the struggle for success beyond the school gates. By dragging everyone down to the same level we may then be able to drag EVERYONE up.

Of course disparities in background and natural qualities will still be crucial determinants of success or failure however they're measured, but we might be making a start in creating a more just society, and one in which justice actually starts to be seen as a value worth promoting.

Life chances are massively affected by education and background. There's little justice in a scenario which sees children from advantaged backgrounds further benefitting from a superior education, and later becoming part of a privileged grouping who all too often strive to ensure that only those like themselves have access to the various assets that accompany high level achievement in uk society.

There's much to be done if we want to create a fairer society and genuine democracy in this country.
Re: Private Schooling
[info]thelzdking wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 11:29 am (UTC)
Couldn't have put it better myself; I find the selfishness of 'middle Britain' astonishing sometimes.
politics of envy
[info]vhawk1951 wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 10:56 am (UTC)
hey ho, here we go , the politics of envy strikes again; bound to say, hard to justify my old school as a charity

but why pay taxes twice?
children of the elite will always and inevitably be better educated than the lower classes who can be satisfactorily educated by being taught to read and write and figure , as the americans say
Charities are a grey zone
[info]stupidgame wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 11:20 am (UTC)
Whilst I understand that the charity commision has to make sure that private schools deserve to keep their status I would like to add:

- Why is it only money that they want? Since when is giving money to the poor the only way to be charitable? Private schools could do volunteer work or other charitable actions such as raising donations for a worthy cause. In fact, this is what many already do but it doesn't seem to make a difference. They want money, that is all that counts.

- As it will be parents who will finance this Labour envy campaign out of their already taxed income, may I suggest a tax break for that. Why do they have to pay twice for the governments incapacity to improve state schools?

- I can't see why this is so upsetting as next year this time round a Tory government may decide to drop this nonsense altogether. Dame Suzie good bye.

- Then maybe Dame Suzie can start looking at all those charities that are not supposed to get involved in politics but frankly don't care a bit about that. Red Nose Day charity posters this year featured a grinning Ed Balls. This is just as against the rules as private schools but of course, it has slipped the attention of Dame Suzie. Selective enforcement.
Re: Charities are a grey zone
[info]colinru wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 07:13 pm (UTC)
Had you not noticed - selective enforcement is the New Labour modus operandi. One reason why the poor, white working-class are starting to vote BNP is because they are (being white) on the sharp end of this selectivity.
Mr Vhawk ?
[info]chipmem1 wrote:
Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 03:36 pm (UTC)
Why taxes twice. Why pay them once ?

Ask all the life long tax payers means tested from unemployment benefit or the
old couple selling their home for care home....

Why they paid taxes ?

The whole system is nuts from head to toe.
Tax threat could hit hundreds of public schools
[info]famulla wrote:
Wednesday, 15 July 2009 at 07:08 am (UTC)
Why do we call private and public all things What is the reason Is the Tax private or is it Public Just asking please.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla


Most popular