www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-257 ... ok_bbcnews There is an idea, which doesn't look like being adopted to be fair, that those who earn a combined income of more than £80,000 should have to pay if their children go to the most popular state schools. The idea being that £80,000 is the starting point, increasing the more you earn. First of all I would volunteer that I wouldn't be in the bracket to make the extra payments should they be implemented. My personal thoughts is that its double taxation (as we pay council tax) on those who have worked themselves up the ladder. That while I agree those earning these sorts of levels shouldn't receive benefits (generally speaking), that we should all be universally entitled to access to education for our children, healthcare etc without penalty beyond paying your fair share of taxes. What do people think of this idea?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-257 ... ok_bbcnews There is an idea, which doesn't look like being adopted to be fair, that those who earn a combined income of more than £80,000 should have to pay if their children go to the most popular state schools. The idea being that £80,000 is the starting point, increasing the more you earn. First of all I would volunteer that I wouldn't be in the bracket to make the extra payments should they be implemented. My personal thoughts is that its double taxation (as we pay council tax) on those who have worked themselves up the ladder. That while I agree those earning these sorts of levels shouldn't receive benefits (generally speaking), that we should all be universally entitled to access to education for our children, healthcare etc without penalty beyond paying your fair share of taxes. What do people think of this idea?

I've never liked the whole thing of if you earn more you should pay more back or pay for stuff like this just because they can afford it!

As you say, it's a double taxation and they are already paying higher tax on their income than anyone else to begin with - so why should they?

Everyone has the same opportunity in school to learn and develop, go on to college and University and end up earning this kind of salary - just a case of people wanting to work for it and not just bum around!

This is what it is all about:



It's just another way of socialising the nations debt with the middle classes picking up the tab. In particular those who can't hide their income will be paying in full whereas the those who can will avoid this as they do income tax.

I don't disagree with his view that grammar schools are stuffed full of middle class kids and do nothing to aid social mobility but just who does he think [ihis[/i school is stuffed with and how does [ihis[/i school aid social mobility?

If he thinks money is the answer to improving standards in state schools which he seems to think is the case as he argues the fees would be distributed throughout the state sector, there is a very simple way to ensure more many is available - ensure people and companies are taxed properly via a progressive taxation system.

That way the well off will be paying more towards the education budget and there would be no need to set up a ton of bureaucracy to administer the system he envisages.

I thought people paying tax (central and local) "paid" for schools anyway?

The idea is absurd. If people had to pay £20,000 for a state educatiion (where the state spends a fraction of that on their child) they'd opt for private education - which would suit his ilk as lots of lowergrade private schools are struggling. Furthermore, it would be more divisive - which suits the sicker right-wing elements and would allow state education funding to be slashed without risking a chattering class rebellion. Better I think for all concerned itf charitable reliefs are taken away from private schools so that the free-market loving parents and Tories can pay more for their children's education.

All would be fine if the money that the wealthy Terry-and-June class parents handed over for Tarquins state education would be left in the particular school's coffers for their spending on further improving, which then wouldn't benefit genral education standards at all, hang on, I've not thought this through and neither has the good Dr.

So its all bollax.

I find the best way is to help the less well off rather than get fixated about 'rich' people.
If the system worked as it ought and tax avoidance abuse was minimised, then better off folk would already be contributing more.
That's even on a flat rate of tax, nevermind an additional higher tax band rate.

Many of these people employ other people, they spend more money. What is the problem?

And I'm not one of them by the way.
OK, I have my mansion in Yorkshire, but times is hard.
lol

No-one is going to pay £20K a year to send their kids to the local state school.

They will pack them off to Repton or Uppingham instead.

Some sensible discussion so far... but probably not long until this thread descends into a haves vs have-nots argument, with the have-nots using it as another opportunity to be part of the 'us' in the never-ending war against 'them'.

I'll show my hand now then.

I benefited from a state grammar school education 1968-73 so it would be slightly hypocritical of me to suggest that the notion of "middle class education" did not or does not exist.

I left with a boatload of poor grade GCE O levels and walked into an office job, my brother went to a Secondary school, failed most of his CSE exams but left with enough to get himself an apprenticeship and ended up as a time-served joiner, within a couple of years he was earning more than me, within fifteen years we were both working together in our own company.

The point is that its not necessarily the education that you receive, although a good grounding in everything is essential, but what happens when you go out into the world of work that matters, and the problem today is that everything is measured and graded and if you don't fit that grade then you don't even get a look-in the door.

I walked into the first job I was interviewed for because the bloke who interviewed me thought I could do the job and thought I would fit into his team, I was never asked to show any qualifications, simply to turn up on Monday in a suit to start my career as a quantity surveyor - try doing that today, I have a lot of sympathy for kids who don't cope with an academic environment and never get the chance to prove themselves in a job where money and an interest in what you're doing (possibly for the first time in your life) is the prime motivator.

Since all sides of the great class divide or whatever you want to call it see this as a stupid idea I think you might be wrong there.

I went to a secondary modern until it came to A levels when I transferred to the Grammar school. It was either that or Wigan tech and I didn't fancy the journey every day into Wigan!

The grammar school Geography teachers were rubbish in comparison to the ones at the secondary modern and not long after I left the schools merged as comprehensive education arrived in the borough. The head of geography from the secondary modern became head of the combined department and I wasn't the least bit surprised. Much to the annoyance of the grammar school geography teachers apparently.



This kind of happened to me at Uni. I was made to study Computer Science as a subsidiary subject (none of this modular degree rubbish back then) and despite not having A levels particularly suited I took to it like a duck to water and have never done anything else since. Would I get into the department today? Maybe as they do take students from all backgrounds but the point is it was very late in my educational career I found something I was really interested in and from then on my rather mediocre academic achievements were consigned to history. It is amazing what being motived and interested can do.

Definitely dumb idea, which as suggested earlier would see children in this position likely go to private school (if it's going to cost £x to go to state school and only a bit more to go to private school, then they'll go to private school) entirely contrary to the stated aim of the idea.

Whilst I did well at school until 16 I got lazy after that and ultimately left a degree course after a year. It didn't stop me doing enough to find myself in what would now be the proposed "pay for school" category, if I had kids.

After all this time the closest I've come to having to show any formal qualifications has been this upcoming move to South Africa, but being an intra-company transfer avoids the need.

Did I ever tell you lot that I had to get up for school half an hour before I went to bed, then lick the streets clean before going to a scummy excuse for a school where I was whipped to within an inch of my life everyday?
And I ended up being the most intelligent person on the planet, well at least on here anyhow.
Relevance? .... well none really, I just like taking about ME!

I'd just like to add - I have a Microsoft accredited qualification in SQL database creation and management which I obtained purely by finding a CD with all the answers on it and hiding the screen underneath the online exam paper when I took it, so good was my ploy that I was the only one in the room of local authority database managers and general IT geeks to get question 7 correct when in fact, after the exam, they all proved to the tutor that the official Microsoft answer was incorrect, and he agreed while I sat staring at the ceiling whistling to myself.

Its the only qualification I have obtained in 41 years.

Come now, your modesty does you an injustice.

The other daft thing about the suggestion is to say that middle-class parents get their kids into the best state schools. Whilst that is true at the margin and especially in big cities like London is it is most cases the case that the "best" (ie higher achieving) state schools are the best in those terms simply because of their catchment areas and their intake (ie of middle class, relatively priveliged kids, with supprtive parents, access to books, computers etc at home. The guy has been living out of that imaginery place - the real world - for too long and it shows.

How about scrapping private education and forcing the rich barstewards to send their kids to the same schools as everyone else. Maybe they would then be happier to pay their taxes knowing that their kids would benefit and thus also help raise the standard of education for everyone.

Do we really want to ban stuff and limit personal freedom further? Doesn't get my vote.

While we are at is let's restrict car sales to one type of car. It can be state-produced and called the Trabant.

If state education needs further funding then either raise income tax or reduce spending elsewhere. But education, like the NHS, should be free for everyone. I would include higher education in that too.

Personally I think state education does need more money. In order to lower class sizes and to provide more class rooms and facilities for schools.
But I think the biggest potential changes lay with the curriculum, OFSTED and the management of schools.
- Cut the curriculum. In my opinion we're attempting to teach kids too much stuff, and the wrong stuff. 12 year old kids shouldn't be going home on a Friday with 8 different pieces of homework to do. Often about things have little or no relevance to their lives in subjects where they haven't been taught the basics properly.
It would also free up teachers to actually teach instead of having to stick rigidly to the curriculum because there's no time for anything else or to explore an issue in more depth.
- OFSTED is far too focused on results (get rid of the league tables while we're at it). It, along with the league tables, encourages teachers to teach to the exam and not the subject, and also encourages things like leaving kids out of taking GCSE's if they don't think they'll pass.
- Management. Very often head teachers have risen through the teaching ranks and have little experience of management, yet find themselves in control of a large budget, hundreds of staff and thousands of pupils.

The extra money should help give greater breadth of education to students by having more facilities be it for sport or vocational subjects rather than purely academic.

[url=http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1988-TRABANT-601-S-TWO-STROKE-/221337970986?pt=Automobiles_UK&hash=item3388c5692aHave a 1988 Trabi for nearly £2,500.[/url

i always believe that you should be shown what percent of your many taxations goes towards your children's schooling and it should be up to you if you pay it or put them through private education.

Goodbye to state education if that were ever to happen - why on earth would anyone who doesn't have children of school age ever opt to pay the education part of their tax bill ?

Taxation and state provision of certain services isn't optional.

well then it would be a tax break if you have a child isn't that what would appeal to mass of this generation? You pay your normal tax rate until you have a child

I would add private health insurance to that as well.