KWC fees.

[TheTeapot]

14 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

KWC is an asset for the island for all the class war sneering. 

This post annoys me quite a lot. Are you sure your ire at 'sneering' is directed in the right place? It would seem to be a JD Vance kind of comment, a definite sneer.

 

[TheTeapot]

Should add, I dont even have a problem with KWC, I can see it has definite benefits, and remain annoyed at the short sighted dickheads who objected to their swimming pool plan.

I will never not have a problem with range rover drivers though.

[HeliX]

52 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Gawd, 2 minute back of the envelope calculation can be criticised for being simplistic. Gosh. 

Big picture If something like just 4 millionaires move their family offices off the IOM because they want a traditional public school education for their little darlings then the gains from VAT will be more than offset. 

I'm attempting to put the issue into perspective. 

 

Where are they moving from that doesn't have private schools? 

Why is it the Government's (i.e. the taxpayer's) problem to prop up a private school that can't exist without tax breaks?

Why doesn't KWC just cut down on the takeaway coffee and avocado if it can't manage its own finances?

[Chinahand]

Yippee I've annoyed Teapot.

My position is reasonably clear I think.

I am not a socialist. I think education is really important and providing a good education to your children a vital responsibility. The state provides an education paid for from general taxation for anyone. A huge societal benefit, but also a huge individual benefit for individual parents. People have a right to choose how their children are educated (though I agree with broad curricular quality standards). State education can be severely lacking: it misses many of the components a true education requires, it is too standardised and so stifles many people who would thrive in a more tailored educational environment. It is a societal good that parents who are aware of this choose to educate their children outside the state system.

Please note I am quite definitely not saying brilliant people cannot come via the state system, brilliant teachers and hard working pupils and families are everywhere - and I will say the opposite too many public school pupils are over-supported and fail when they enter university and have to get on on their own. 

I am for more educational choice, more rounded educational curricular (debating, music, drama, outdoor and sporting activities to grow self confidence) and wish to highlight the stultifying affects of state uniformity in education.

I firmly think educational services are, and should be seen by the state, as a societal good and so be exempt from tax.

I also firmly believe educational services should be a charitable service where profits cannot be made and have to be reinvested in education.

This thread is full of posts about range rovers and how the rich should just pay up.

That misses the big picture and I'll continue to challenge the class warriors who so narrowly focus the debate.

Get annoyed Teapot!

[A fool and his money.....]

1 hour ago, Chinahand said:

Gawd, 2 minute back of the envelope calculation can be criticised for being simplistic. Gosh. 

Big picture If something like just 4 millionaires move their family offices off the IOM because they want a traditional public school education for their little darlings then the gains from VAT will be more than offset. 

I'm attempting to put the issue into perspective. 

 

If it's and ands were pots and pans there'd be no work for tinkers hands.

The same sort of thing is always trotted out in discussions of the tax cap, although history doesn't relate how much that has cost.

There has to be some value in a more equitable society too. You probably can make an(invariably undisclosed) little bit of money from giving tax breaks to millionaires. Perhaps the more pertinent question would be, should you?

[Ringy Rose]

59 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

KWC is an asset for the island for all the class war sneering. 

KWC’s biggest asshat is Chief Minister.

[A fool and his money.....]

3 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Yippee I've annoyed Teapot.

My position is reasonably clear I think.

I am not a socialist. I think education is really important and providing a good education to your children a vital responsibility. The state provides an education paid for from general taxation for anyone. A huge societal benefit, but also a huge individual benefit for individual parents. People have a right to choose how their children are educated (though I agree with broad curricular quality standards). State education can be severely lacking: it misses many of the components a true education requires, it is too standardised and so stifles many people who would thrive in a more tailored educational environment. It is a societal good that parents who are aware of this choose to educate their children outside the state system.

Please note I am quite definitely not saying brilliant people cannot come via the state system, brilliant teachers and hard working pupils and families are everywhere - and I will say the opposite too many public school pupils are over-supported and fail when they enter university and have to get on on their own. 

I am for more educational choice, more rounded educational curricular (debating, music, drama, outdoor and sporting activities to grow self confidence) and wish to highlight the stultifying affects of state uniformity in education.

I firmly think educational services are, and should be seen by the state, as a societal good and so be exempt from tax.

I also firmly believe educational services should be a charitable service where profits cannot be made and have to be reinvested in education.

This thread is full of posts about range rovers and how the rich should just pay up.

That misses the big picture and I'll continue to challenge the class warriors who so narrowly focus the debate.

Get annoyed Teapot!

The point is, the choice in education that you crave is only open to a tiny minority of people - those who can afford it.

If you want government to invest in educational choice, then there are far more effective ways of doing it than giving large tax breaks to the very small number of people who can choose to send their kids to KWC.

 

[Ringy Rose]

8 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

I firmly think educational services are, and should be seen by the state, as a societal good and so be exempt from tax.

A private school that you have to pay the equivalent of the average person’s salary to attend is not a societal good. It IS really good for the rich fellers. The rest of us plebs? We get absolutely no benefit from KWC and KWC’s absence would not be noticed.

Services which are far more of a societal good attract VAT. When I buy clothes I pay VAT, and nobody wants to see me without clothes.

I see no reason why private school fees should not attract VAT.

As for choice, I can’t choose to send my kids to KWC because- here’s the thing- the fees are £25,000 a year.

Edited August 29 by Ringy Rose

[wrighty]

I've got mixed views on private education. I didn't send my own kids to private schools, and instead spent (some of) the money saved on music lessons, sports, travel, and if required private tutoring for areas where the state school wasn't enough.

I believe in choice - if the Range Rover Evoque set want to pay for their kids' education they should be able to - but I don't think private schools should pretend to be charities or get VAT breaks.  Nor should parents get tax relief on private school fees - the logical extension of that is that childless individuals should get similar breaks.

[HeliX]

15 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Yippee I've annoyed Teapot.

My position is reasonably clear I think.

I am not a socialist. I think education is really important and providing a good education to your children a vital responsibility. The state provides an education paid for from general taxation for anyone. A huge societal benefit, but also a huge individual benefit for individual parents. People have a right to choose how their children are educated (though I agree with broad curricular quality standards). State education can be severely lacking: it misses many of the components a true education requires, it is too standardised and so stifles many people who would thrive in a more tailored educational environment. It is a societal good that parents who are aware of this choose to educate their children outside the state system.

Please note I am quite definitely not saying brilliant people cannot come via the state system, brilliant teachers and hard working pupils and families are everywhere - and I will say the opposite too many public school pupils are over-supported and fail when they enter university and have to get on on their own. 

I am for more educational choice, more rounded educational curricular (debating, music, drama, outdoor and sporting activities to grow self confidence) and wish to highlight the stultifying affects of state uniformity in education.

I firmly think educational services are, and should be seen by the state, as a societal good and so be exempt from tax.

I also firmly believe educational services should be a charitable service where profits cannot be made and have to be reinvested in education.

This thread is full of posts about range rovers and how the rich should just pay up.

That misses the big picture and I'll continue to challenge the class warriors who so narrowly focus the debate.

Get annoyed Teapot!

Nobody (so far as I'm aware) is suggesting the Government should forcibly close KWC. The question is should the Government, effectively, subsidise a private business masquerading as a charity which serves only the top few percent of earners using taxpayers money. And the answer is quite clearly no.

[Albert Tatlock]

7 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Nobody (so far as I'm aware) is suggesting the Government should forcibly close KWC. The question is should the Government, effectively, subsidise a private business masquerading as a charity which serves only the top few percent of earners using taxpayers money. And the answer is quite clearly no.

Sounds like that thinking might be on the cards currently...but whether any support actually gets through Tynwald might be an entirely different matter.

[TheTeapot]

27 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Yippee I've annoyed Teapot.

It's only a good thing if you actually understand how you've done it.

[Meoir Shee]

I’m not sure than anyone is against the existence of KWC per se, it provides a service for a fee, if you have the disposable income then fair enough, spend it on what you want, life is about choices.

However, it does seem, from some of the previous posts, that the future viability of KWC is somewhat questionable in advance of any VAT changes, falling roll, capital expenditure, recruitment issues etc.

Quite a few people on here are very vociferous on how useless anything related to the state is (in fairness, it can be!) and the private sector is the cure for all ills.  Surely these voices would therefore support an inefficient  and potentially loss making organization exiting the market?  Not many other organizations get to hide behind charitable status and tax breaks, it isn’t that long ago that a price fixing cartel was uncovered in the sector (no suggestion KWC was involved), not very charitable.  If another entrepreneur feels as though there is money to be made, perhaps they would enter the market and fill the gap?

On a purely anecdotal level, I am aware of several pupils who have left KWC at the end of GCSEs and entered the state sector for 6th Form.  I cannot recall anyone going the opposite way.  Perhaps this is related to the continued use of the IB at KWC?  Again, if that is what the market desires then so be it, but I do understand they are launching a Btec alternative route from Sept 24, perhaps that is a move to improve their retention rate and subsequent revenue?

 

 

[Lxxx]

1 hour ago, Chinahand said:

KWC is an asset for the island for all the class war sneering. 

Of course it is. Any self respecting small jurisdiction that seeks to encourage the wealthy to relocate here needs to have the option of a private academic establishment for them to send their children too. Notwithstanding the fact that we need the extra brainpower that comes out of there to move into the upper echelons of the island establishment and I say this as someone who came from state school myself and I'm not a millionaire either.    

Edited August 29 by Lxxx

[Chinahand]

I am still intrigued by the statist mindset which thinks the state should tax everything and anything which isn't taxed is being given a subsidy by the government. 

I'm also intrigued by the views on charitable status, Wrighty sums up what seems to be a majority opinon:

30 minutes ago, wrighty said:

I don't think private schools should pretend to be charities

This is odd to me. Private schools aren't businesses. They do not make profits. The people who establish them and who bequeath money to them are doing so purely for philanthropic purposes. The unpaid and volunteer governors  have legal responsibilities to ensure the school is well run and that the legacy is maintained in the long run.

Yes, employees are paid for their jobs. Quelle surprise. Running a multi-million pound organisation needs a certain rare skill set.

But all funds have to be reinvested in the school. This is not a profit making exercise.

The activity - providing an education without a profit - is the charitable purpose. There's no pretending about it, for all Wrighty's claims.

We are back to the statist and class-war mindset - rich people use this service, so it cannot be a charity. That is looking in the wrong direction, at the users and not the provider.

The class-war mindset thinks the user is undeserving of state subsidy (even though not being taxedisn't a subsidy) and so insists the provider cannot be a charity.