Two-lane Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 Charitable: adjective relating to the assistance of those in need: "charitable works such as care of the sick" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 1 hour ago, Ringy Rose said: KWC’s biggest asshat is Chief Minister. Past or present? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 It's a trick question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Chinahand said: I'm also intrigued by the views on charitable status, Wrighty sums up what seems to be a majority opinon: 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. Most people, me included, think of charities as organisations that raise funds to distribute to good causes for free. I understand legally that there is nothing to stop a charity from charging for its services, but that's not the common usage of the term. Many would think that if a 'charity' is charging £30k per person for its services it's not really a charity. ETA if I see them shaking tins in town I won't be contributing. I'm more likely to contribute to charities that at least give the impression of using those funds to provide free services for those that need them. Edited August 29 by wrighty Addition 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 8 minutes ago, wrighty said: if I see them shaking tins in town I won't be contributing Ah Wrighty, you've gone to the nub of the issue there. And exposed another statist set of assumptions. Who should pay for someone else's education? Aren't most of us lucky that the answer is the state, coercively taking money off people with menaces, to pay for the little darlings. Education is older than the state and people who understand the societal importance of education have always rallied around and selflessly supported schools and education, but that is a minority view, and in an age of the statist near monopoly very few people are willing to go beyond the taxes they pay to fund other people's education (clearly not Wrighty 🙂. I personally do know people who have selflessly not only paid their taxes but have then gone beyond that and paid for many people's education. Most people won't. And so, as most people won't contribute to the shaking tins, education is only a free service for those who wish to access the state's coercively funded services. Those who wish to use an alternative to the state have to pay for it themselves. And that is a big hard commitment which multiple people sacrifice a huge amount to do. Education isn't a luxury and shouldn't be subject to the coercive policies of the state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 1 minute ago, Chinahand said: Education isn't a luxury and shouldn't be subject to the coercive policies of the state. Education is provided free of charge (to the user) by the state. That's about as non-coercive as the state can be about it. Private education is absolutely a luxury. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 1 hour ago, Chinahand said: 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. If the mission of KWC was to give these educational options to children who most need it or would benefit from it I would not only be fine with that, I'd be fine with my taxes increasing to pay for it. But it's not, it's to provide advantages to those with wealthy enough parents to afford it. So they can stump up. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 9 minutes ago, Chinahand said: Education is older than the state and people who understand the societal importance of education have always rallied around and selflessly supported schools and education, but that is a minority view, and in an age of the statist near monopoly very few people are willing to go beyond the taxes they pay to fund other people's education (clearly not Wrighty 🙂. I've not paid money (except for my own kids and some to my sister's) but I have given free tutoring to several kids struggling with maths lessons. Does that count? But yes, I believe in free state education provided by general taxation. Even if I was childless myself I wouldn't want to live in a society where there isn't universal education provision. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 5 minutes ago, wrighty said: I've not paid money (except for my own kids and some to my sister's) but I have given free tutoring to several kids struggling with maths lessons. Does that count? But yes, I believe in free state education provided by general taxation. Even if I was childless myself I wouldn't want to live in a society where there isn't universal education provision. Does it count? Of course, and good for you for tutoring ... it was only a joke from your statement that you'd ignore the shaking tin. I also entirely believe in free state education provided by general taxation. That isn't the issue we are debating at all. We are debating whether the state should tax non-profit educational services. I firmly say no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 7 minutes ago, Chinahand said: We are debating whether the state should tax non-profit educational services. I firmly say no. I don't think it's black and white. If someone set up an educational facility for, say, children with dyslexia which accepted any and all students and was funded by donations, grants etc then no. If an education facility exists to take anyone who's parents are fortunate enough to afford it, regardless of the needs or abilities of the child, then yes it should be taxed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 12 minutes ago, Chinahand said: We are debating whether the state should tax non-profit educational services. Besides education, are there any other non-profit (by intent non-profit, rather than just incompetence) services that should be regarded as a charity and therefore not be taxed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 8 minutes ago, HeliX said: I don't think it's black and white. If someone set up an educational facility for, say, children with dyslexia which accepted any and all students and was funded by donations, grants etc then no. If an education facility exists to take anyone who's parents are fortunate enough to afford it, regardless of the needs or abilities of the child, then yes it should be taxed. Sounds fair enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 26 minutes ago, HeliX said: If the mission of KWC was to give these educational options to children who most need it or would benefit from it I would not only be fine with that, I'd be fine with my taxes increasing to pay for it. Again the statist mindset. Why wait for the state to do it? I was literally talking to the Head of KWC recently and he is desperate to increase access. Absolutely seriously, he would gladly set up the HeliX Deserving Child bursary if you and say 10 of your mates chose to contribute. Which brings us to this: 13 minutes ago, HeliX said: I don't think it's black and white. If someone set up an educational facility for, say, children with dyslexia which accepted any and all students and was funded by donations, grants etc then no. If an education facility exists to take anyone who's parents are fortunate enough to afford it, regardless of the needs or abilities of the child, then yes it should be taxed. If you set up such a school you'd find it very difficult to get the donations and grants to do what you aspire to do, and you'd have huge challenges covering the overheads. And what you'd quite quickly discover is that the best way to cover your costs is to create a good flexible school dedicated to educational excellence which attracts parents who then cover your overheads allowing you to provide the special services you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 2 minutes ago, Chinahand said: Again the statist mindset. Why wait for the state to do it? Because the private sector doing it causes this: Quote If you set up such a school you'd find it very difficult to get the donations and grants to do what you aspire to do, and you'd have huge challenges covering the overheads. And what you'd quite quickly discover is that the best way to cover your costs is to create a good flexible school dedicated to educational excellence which attracts parents who then cover your overheads allowing you to provide the special services you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted August 29 Share Posted August 29 1 hour ago, Lxxx said: Notwithstanding the fact that we need the extra brainpower that comes out of there to move into the upper echelons of the island establishment Ah Howard Quayle and Alf Cannan. Tim Johnston and Tim Glover. Where would we be without those intellectual powerhouses? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.