So it's class war then...

[PhilboSE]

So Labour now want to apply higher levels of business rates to independent schools, calling this a "subsidy". Conveniently forgetting that anyone sending a child to an independent school relieves the State of the burden of providing an education for their child, so that it's a massive subsidy in the opposite direction.

All Labour can do, it seems, is to use the politics of envy to declare that they are going to tax the "rich" more. Nothing about what they are going to do with the revenues, just that they're going to tax the rich more. The language used is designed to appeal to the simple minded:

- "mansion tax" : most affected houses will be homes in London & SE owned by aspirational middle class, not "mansions"
- "zero / zero culture" : the "rich" pay, by far, the largest percentage of income as tax and the largest absolute amounts of tax, not "zero"
- "remove public school subsidy" : you mean the independent schools that deliver £Bns in savings to the State?

Why does the media parrot out these trite phrases issued by Labour, without challenging them on even the slightest level? The minute Ed opened his mouth about "zero / zero" Britain, the media should have asked him to point exactly who the "zero" rate taxpayers are and how they do it?

[PhilboSE]

Bluebarge said:

Would it improve social mobility or ths state system? possibly; but the real point is - why are commercial enterprises who benefit a wealthy few treated as charities?

Some independent schools are commercial enterprises (and are taxed as such), and some are not. It's very easy to mentally categorise independent schools exclusively into the mould of Eton, but in reality there are many more which are very "normal" and barely make ends meet. The local independent prep school I sent my children to had less good facilities than the local state schools and the teachers were paid pretty much the same as the state teachers. The main school building was an old house bequeathed in trust about 80 years ago by a spinster to the local community. Parents are happy to pay the fees and teachers are happy to teach there because of the spirit within the school, smaller class sizes and academic results. Any changes to the financial status of the school and fees would have to go up (pricing some parents out of this as an option) and an increased burden would fall on the local State schools. A lot of independent schools close with each recession, because they walk a fine line financially.

The State gets a very good deal from independent schools - only the simple minded look at just one element of the balance. There's around 500,000 children in independent education in the UK and at £90Bn the State spends about £9000 on each of the ~10,000,000 children in the State system. On those numbers the independent sector saves the State from around £4.5Bn of additional spend each year. If the State currently loses around £20Mn pounds (Ed's figures are £100Mn over the lifetime of his hypothetical next government) a year in this "subsidy", in order to make a saving of £4.5Bn (i.e. x225 the return) then that seems like a pretty good investment to me.

Why isn't Labour concentrating on the real tax dodgers in the system - the corporations like Google, Facebook, Starbucks, Amazon etc who pay virtually no tax on profits generated from the UK? The rewards are much bigger than going after the perceived "rich"? Is it because Labour doesn't think that "recovering corporation tax from multinational organisations who leverage boundaries to shift artifical costs and reduce local profit" isn't as much of a vote-winning catcy soundbite for as "we'll tax the rich"?

[PhilboSE]

edh said:

Mind you, if all the fee paying schools lost their pupils, we'd have lots of lovely buildings to turn into state schools, and lots teachers to staff them..

No you wouldn't, because the State doesn't own them (the buildings). You would have lots of brownfield sites for housing developments, however. I'll let you tell all the locals that their house values have now slumped by around 30% because they're no longer in the catchment area for a good school...

You would then have the ultra-elite schools left servicing the ultra-rich. They might be paying business rates and corporation tax, and fees would go up by 30%, and congratulations, your policies have now burdened the State with providing 2500 new schools at what cost to the national finances?

[PhilboSE]

edh said:

I'm sure planning controls could restrict any change of use...after all a school is no use to housebuilders if all they can do with it is use it to teach kids. and you know what, all the locals now have access to good schools..not just the well off.

Local independent secondary school near me, in an affluent suburb...closed in the 2008 recession. Now it's just another housing estate. When one of Labour's last policies was to force councils to build new homes on the Green Belt around London, I doubt that old school sites will get any protection.

[PhilboSE]

FredClogs said:

They are only threatening to remove the subsidy from schools which don't wish to get involved with their local community and create joint ventures with the local state schools.

It's not a subsidy. It's one element of a complex financial equation that enables £4.7Bn of savings for the State education system.

But you can focus on a single factor within that equation if you like. After all, it's what Ed wants you to do. It sounds good for the simpletons.