|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How academies promote choice and accountability
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Marvin, you're assuming all comprehensives look like the schools you didn't attend 20 odd years ago
I'm arguing from personal experience. So are a lot of other people on this thread, some of whom are disagreeing with me. Get over it.
Worse still, those who ultimately make or influence the decisions are doing exactly that too and most didn't attend comprehensives or grammar schools. I'm not sure who is held to account for Eton College, a Board of Trustees I guess, but they are probably far more accountable than whatever it is oversees Halewood Academy.
We should really be calling Nicky Morgan, the hapless education minister, here.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
As others have pointed out, having such a tiny, tiny number of your cohort from primary make it to grammar shows that the system was utterly broken by the time you got to it.
Or it means that there genuinely were only a tiny number of kids in my cohort who were both intelligent and motivated enough to do so (for the record, only three kids in my primary school class even bothered sitting the 11+). Even at age 11 most of the boys were planning to leave school at 16 and go work in the factory like their dads did.
The factory closed in 2005, so I imagine things are a bit different there now. But that's how it was in the late 80s/early 90s.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I'm not so sure that everyone at a grammar is academically inclined. In the town I was teaching in, there was a school which was widely known to coach (though it was supposed to be banned) for the selection tests. It did that sort of thing for other things, too. One day when our school was closed, I was down at the swimming pool and found a small (somewhere between 6 and 9) select group of their pupils (already club standard) being coached for the Swimming Gala. We tended to concentrate on teaching the non-swimmers. Their pupils also took all the awards at the athletics, where they looked to be a year older than ours (not saying they were, just that their nutritional history was different from our pupils).
When I attended courses at their school, I noticed the work on the wall, very consistent, no individuality.
Anyway, the interesting part of this comes with the feedback on our pupils which the grammar sent us. Our pupils, not coached, had arrived in the top half of the top sets. Theirs hadn't.
Coached children, with parents able to afford to buy homes in the catchment of the school with the reputation of getting children into the grammars (ours were in poor terraces, theirs in leafy semis) may arrive in grammars, but it is the parents who decide they are academically inclined, not necessarily the children themselves. Who may be better able to play rugby than a physically disabled child, but, put in an academic situation, do not necessarily excel.
And that difference may create a situation which can induce bullying when the "entitled" meet those from a poorer background who do better than them. (Been there.)
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm not so sure that everyone at a grammar is academically inclined. In the town I was teaching in, there was a school which was widely known to coach (though it was supposed to be banned) for the selection tests. It did that sort of thing for other things, too. One day when our school was closed, I was down at the swimming pool and found a small (somewhere between 6 and 9) select group of their pupils (already club standard) being coached for the Swimming Gala. We tended to concentrate on teaching the non-swimmers.
Some years ago my wife taught in a primary school (state, not private). She was asked to do some special classes for those who had difficulties in reading.
Naturally she turned her attention to those who had the greatest problems, but was told that this wasn't the group she should concentrate on: what she must do was give her attention to the "borderline" children who, with a bit of extra help, might bump up to the next SATs grade. Those at the bottom who would never improve their grades were to be ignored.
My wife was outraged and refused to comply; the Head was Not Pleased with her.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
When I attended courses at their school, I noticed the work on the wall, very consistent, no individuality.
I noticed the same at the Rudolf Steiner school which met in one of my churches: they said that they prized creativity and originality, yet their art work was all much of a piece. I could (and can) spot it a mile off.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Some years ago my wife taught in a primary school (state, not private). She was asked to do some special classes for those who had difficulties in reading.
Naturally she turned her attention to those who had the greatest problems, but was told that this wasn't the group she should concentrate on: what she must do was give her attention to the "borderline" children who, with a bit of extra help, might bump up to the next SATs grade. Those at the bottom who would never improve their grades were to be ignored.
My wife was outraged and refused to comply; the Head was Not Pleased with her.
You would do the same as that head if your job depended on the results of the borderline children - and they do more and more. Headteachers are treated like football managers.
It's the system that's broken, not the people who work in it ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I quite agree, and the Head was being pressurised by her LEA to "improve the SATs results" (although I know that her job wasn't 'on the line' over it). Unfortunately that meant that the most needy children didn't get the help to which they were entitled.
[ 07. April 2016, 11:16: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Whatever system we have in place (or however you describe it), the indisputable fact is that social mobility (the result of a good education) is at its worst for a generation.
A child from a council house with working class parents has no chance of getting to Oxbridge let alone obtaining a scholarship. [Bursaries are given to children of lone parents but they are often parents who are Doctors, Teachers or Accountant or some such. No one can show me where a child of a dinner lady gets a look in].
The chances of such a child getting to any university is minimal anyway - yes, their home environment does play a part but where is the education system helping them? I don't find many - if any - examples.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Sorry for resurrecting this thread, I've been away for a few days.
I just wanted to respond to some of the lazy arguments being used above regarding private schools.
In Kent, schools receive about £4,500 per pupil. So that in itself is money that the tax-payer is not spending per private pupil.
Now, there is an issue of some private schools and their charitable status. Let's just assume for this argument that they all have charitable status (they don't), that the problem is going unregulated (it isn't) and that those private schools are providing nothing charitable to the wider society (they're not).
These schools often charge £20,000 or £30,000 per year. If they are charitable and can claim gift aid, then they are receiving a tax rebate. But hold on a second, that isn't actually a handout from the state, it is just a rebate the individual has paid on the money they've donated. That's how the system works in England.
So the private school might be receiving £40,000 or move untaxed from parents. Of which the actual equivalent cost in the state system is around £4,500.
Part of the extra cost is going to be in extra teachers, more equipment and other expenses. All of which will be subject to the usual income taxes, VAT and so on.
Therefore it is by no means obvious that there is actually an overall tax reduction from parents who donate money to private schools with charitable status compared to sending them to a state school. In the majority of cases, they will overall be employing more private teachers and staff, taking less from the taxpayer for their child's education and keeping money in the local economy.
A second argument has been made that somehow private education is immoral because it reduces pupil numbers in the state schools which then can reduce the payments those schools receive and therefore makes them unviable. Firstly, there is no evidence that privately educated pupils are responsible for the funding crisis in state schools. Even if it is possible to point to individual schools where this is a problem, it must be a tiny local problem. But secondly, this is bullshit thinking. Public transportation is subsidised in many ways. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you always use public transport whenever it is available and never use a car, taxi or plane?
Some idiots spend their money on season tickets to watch football, going to concerts, expensive hobbies, holidays, fashion and other things. Others spend it on education.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Do we know that school fees are eligible for Gift Aid? This site would suggest not.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I am equally baffled, Russ, as to what actually "matters" about grammar schools.
Mr Cheesy s the ms to say it's about lesrning style. Marvin's point is about oversll quality of education achiebed by a better environment. Not controversial in themselves. .
However, neither of these, it seems to me, necessarily require splitting people up physically and socially based on the ability to pass a certsin type of exam at a certain age.
Seems to me that what makes the difference is the ethos of a school, the culture in which the teaching and learning takes place.
The culture of a school is influenced by the policies of the Head, and the culture that the pupils bring with them, and what each successive intake picks up from the existing pupils higher up the school. It's not entirely chosen, but can be influenced.
To be a successful "academic hothouse" school means a culture where applied intelligence and intellectual achievement are highly valued. Where geekiness is OK, where being uncool in pursuit of knowledge is not important.
And in any culture, there's a dark side - low social status for those who don't live up to the values of that culture.
Not saying that all of society should hold grammar school values. Sports academies should value success in sport, schools with an emphasis on performing arts should value those who can act and sing, schools that major in metalwork and other practical subjects should value craftsmanship.
Which means, in effect, that society tells the young a slightly different story as to what is valuable and important and worthwhile, depending on which "stream" they're in. To give everyone something to aim at. And it's that telling different stories that requires separation.
Of course, you can try telling people that everyone's important and valuable no matter what they do. And at one level that's a truth that we want everyone to recognise. But at another level it doesn't motivate anyone to excel at anything.
You can't abolish the dark side by not giving young people status for achievement. (Or equivalently valuing any and all achievement indiscriminately). Social status hierarchies form spontaneously, based on good looks, physical strength, wealth, whatever. Harnessing that social energy to the development of the talents of the individual is part of what a good educational system does.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Whereas this one categorically states they are.
Unless I'm missing something, nothing on that site says anything about gift aid, nor does it contradict the other site you are "whereas-ing".
The schools might be charities, but that according to the government guidance, does not mean that they can claim gift aid.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Do we know that school fees are eligible for Gift Aid? This site would suggest not.
Whereas this one categorically states they are.
No, it doesn't. Private schools are classed as charities and can claim Gift Aid on donations. School fees, unless I've misread the Government rules, are not donations. They are payments for services.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Do we know that school fees are eligible for Gift Aid? This site would suggest not.
Whereas this one categorically states they are.
No, it doesn't. Private schools are classed as charities and can claim Gift Aid on donations. School fees, unless I've misread the Government rules, are not donations. They are payments for services.
Confirmed here
Also an interesting sidelight on the way in which the tax system works in the interests of those who associate with wealth. Does this remind anyone of another issue? The endless perpetuation and preservation of privilege.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Okay. That's an assumption I made which was wrong: levied fees are not eligible for gift aid, which renders that particular part of my argument invalid.
Obviously, donations of various forms do, but I suspect that the charitable status of private schools is now moot.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
But the schools are very keen on donations, aren't they? The Hilary Fanshaw gymnasium, the Jocelyn Chumley music room and so on. And, presumably, the Mrs Joyful prize for raffia work.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
But the schools are very keen on donations, aren't they? The Hilary Fanshaw gymnasium, the Jocelyn Chumley music room and so on. And, presumably, the Mrs Joyful prize for raffia work.
That's the sort of thing I meant, I think: and the link in my previous post shows the way that gift aid tax relief can be used to lessen the awful burden of those subject to the horrors of higher rate tax.
I still don't see how an education to which the assumption of privilege is integral can ever do anything other than perpetuate that assumption and with it its concomitant: an inability to comprehend that it is not universal.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I don't understand why, when I use gift aid to force the Chancellor to support charities he might not otherwise support, that's it - I don't get anything out of it, but when the rich do, he gives them money back.
That's using my money to make the rich richer. That isn't charity.
These would be the same sort of people who have to have very expensive dinners in order to make donations, isn't it?
Different world.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I honestly wasn't aware of gift aid tax relief.
Now I am. Thank you, that's another thing for me to be annoyed about ...
[ 10. April 2016, 20:21: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I suppose I'm doing something similar with the Waitrose vouchers which offer me £4 off if I spend £40, which make me a bit cross, because I live alone, and don't spend that much on myself. So I use them to buy for the food bank, and then use the £4 to buy myself something extra. Like the very much reduced Easter eggs.
I don't think I'd do it with the tax relief though.
[ 10. April 2016, 21:05: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
This is perhaps a tangent, but I can speak to this from first hand:
quote:
A child from a council house with working class parents has no chance of getting to Oxbridge let alone obtaining a scholarship...The chances of such a child getting to any university is minimal anyway -
That's not true - but the truth is perhaps more worrying. In the 20+ years since HE funding was linked to student numbers, the presence of a bum - any bum - on a seat has become an unsurprisingly overriding factor in determining HE policy, right down through course to module level. In the lower half of the sector, don't fail 'em - farm 'em. And if their family has no prior experience of HE then great - their farmability is so much the greater, and can be hidden behind those worthy goals of 'widening participation' and 'improving retention'.
This part of the sector (I still work in it, kind of, though I resigned a lectureship) behaves like private industry, latching on to a way to download public cash. Their responsibility to the individual learner is, IME, not much more than a necessary pose, and not a hard one to achieve when dealing with 'students from non-traditional backgrounds'. The behaviour is perhaps what one might expect from a mini-Serco or G4S. And this is what worries me most about academies, since to me it seems to be what they are designed for, but at school level.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I honestly wasn't aware of gift aid tax relief.
Now I am. Thank you, that's another thing for me to be annoyed about ...
OK, I need to ask. What do you find so annoying?
I've just looked it up, and it doesn't seem to be unreasonable. Gift Aid is a means of reducing your taxable income by giving to charitable organisations. I guess we all agree that charitable giving is good (though, we probably all have examples of charities that shouldn't be able to get the extra from Gift Aid, and charities that we think should but don't).
As it is currently set up, the administrative burden on charities is small - just declare how much of their donations had been given under Gift Aid, and they get an extra 25% on that (which is more than the tax on that donation for most people, so the Chancellor is being forced to give a bit extra). The charity doesn't need to know the income of their donors and apply for additional Gift Aid from higher tax earners.
But, for higher rate tax payers this system means that the principle of reducing taxable income by charitable giving is not fully realised. Hence, for those higher earners, they get back the difference in tax relief. As I understand it, that is basically the system for charitable giving in the US for all tax payers. I'm pretty sure that many people who get money back from government because they have given to charity use that to give more to charity.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK, I need to ask. What do you find so annoying?
I've just looked it up, and it doesn't seem to be unreasonable. Gift Aid is a means of reducing your taxable income by giving to charitable organisations. I guess we all agree that charitable giving is good (though, we probably all have examples of charities that shouldn't be able to get the extra from Gift Aid, and charities that we think should but don't).
As it is currently set up, the administrative burden on charities is small - just declare how much of their donations had been given under Gift Aid, and they get an extra 25% on that (which is more than the tax on that donation for most people, so the Chancellor is being forced to give a bit extra).
I Am Not An Accountant, but I don't think this is correct. You can't give more in gift aid than you've actually paid in tax on the amount you've donated. Hence if you are not a tax-payer, you shouldn't be signing gift-aid declarations (but then I'm sure this is widely abused because the taxman does not have the time to check every tiny donation is coming from a taxpayer).
quote:
The charity doesn't need to know the income of their donors and apply for additional Gift Aid from higher tax earners.
That's true, the system is fairly simple from the point of view of the charities.
quote:
But, for higher rate tax payers this system means that the principle of reducing taxable income by charitable giving is not fully realised. Hence, for those higher earners, they get back the difference in tax relief. As I understand it, that is basically the system for charitable giving in the US for all tax payers. I'm pretty sure that many people who get money back from government because they have given to charity use that to give more to charity.
The problem is that it is possible to reduce your overall tax burden in the Higher Tax Band by giving money to charity, because you get back the difference.
Which just feels like an odd reason to be giving money to charity.
Also this only comes out in the wash for those who are filling in their own tax return, so it seems unfair that employed people who earn the same and give the same amount to charity are unlikely to see the tax rebate.
Incidentally, there also seems to be a clever wheeze by which incorporated businesses reduce their corporation tax owed by giving money to charity.
Again, IANAA.
[ 11. April 2016, 10:39: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
But the schools are very keen on donations, aren't they? The Hilary Fanshaw gymnasium, the Jocelyn Chumley music room and so on. And, presumably, the Mrs Joyful prize for raffia work.
Mrs Grabber presenting the prizes on speech day ... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
OK, I need to ask. What do you find so annoying?
I've just looked it up, and it doesn't seem to be unreasonable. Gift Aid is a means of reducing your taxable income by giving to charitable organisations.
I guess it's because I've always seen Gift Aid as a bonus for the charity rather than the donor.
To my mind, to count as a bonus to the donor, the donor has to end up with more money than they would if the scheme doesn't exist. I would have thought most people who give regularly would set aside a certain amount based on what they could afford and the naggings of their conscience, and would give the same amount (and thus have the same amount left over) regardless of whether Gift Aid existed.
I wouldn't have thought there are many people who think 'Hm, that charity deserves £125, I'll give it £100, it can claim the £25 off the Government and I'll spend the difference on wine and cheese'. (In which case it would be a bonus to the donor, and the rich guy would get proportionally less of his tax back than the standard-rate guy.)
I acknowledge though that gov.uk does describe Gift Aid as a tax relief, which implies they do think people behave as in the second case.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Also this only comes out in the wash for those who are filling in their own tax return, so it seems unfair that employed people who earn the same and give the same amount to charity are unlikely to see the tax rebate.
Wouldn't people in the higher tax band already be filling out a tax return? I suppose a few people in that situation might have very simple tax (eg: they're employed and that is their only income), in which case they may be missing out on this rebate, and therefore there is a bit more in the pot for government to spend (supposedly) to benefit the whole of society. On the otherhand, in that situation filing a tax return is so simple it would be very little effort to do so - actually knowing how much you'd given in Gift Aided donations may be the hardest part (it was for me filing for the first time - a part of my giving is spontaneous, and it's so simple to tick the "Gift Aid" box on a sponsor form or something that I would never be able to keep track of all I'd given).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
To my mind, to count as a bonus to the donor, the donor has to end up with more money than they would if the scheme doesn't exist.
The scheme exists to encourage giving. Most people see it as "the government will give 25% on top of what I give" (despite technicality that it's a tax rebate with a small additional government contribution) and therefore feel that they are forcing government to support a charity they also support. I don't know the statistics, but a lot of charities get a lot of support through small regular Gift Aided donations - would people still give as often if those charities hadn't been able to wave the Gift Aid "the government will give more" flag? If the scheme has encouraged people to give more then even for those in higher tax brackets getting a personal rebate have less money at the end of each month than they would have had if they hadn't given to charity.
quote:
I would have thought most people who give regularly would set aside a certain amount based on what they could afford and the naggings of their conscience, and would give the same amount (and thus have the same amount left over) regardless of whether Gift Aid existed.
Probably true. But, I do think there's a certain power in the (not technically true) notion that "if I give, the government gives too" which would encourage a bit of extra generosity. Also, if I was in a higher tax band and know that I'll be getting a tax rebate on donations that would figure into the "what can I afford?" question, with the answer being "more than I could without the rebate". But, then maybe not everyone thinks that way.
At the end of the day, the question is "does Gift Aid increase the amount people give, and the amount charities have to spend?" I think (without any data to support my thinking) the answer to that is a conclusive "yes". Which is a very good thing.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The scheme exists to encourage giving. Most people see it as "the government will give 25% on top of what I give" (despite technicality that it's a tax rebate with a small additional government contribution)
Please explain how the government is giving an additional contribution.
The basic rate band is 20%. Charities get an extra 25p for every £1 an individual donates as tax relief from gift aid.
So if I've got £1 I have earned net of tax, that must have been £1.25 before tax - if it was earned in the 20% band (0.8y = £1 therefore y is £1/0.8 = £1.25 where y is the pre tax earning). Therefore I can't see that there is anything that the government is giving in addition to the tax paid by the basic rate taxpayer.
I also read that higher tax band payers can have their tax band amended or via payroll giving in order to avoid paying the tax in the first place.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Mr. Cheesy is right! The Government simply passes on its tax "take" to the charity. It doesn't add anything. Note, however, that Alan said that the notion of "if I give, the government gives too" is not technically true.
Of course there are "matched funding" projects - they're quite different.
[ 12. April 2016, 08:15: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I have to admit to being a higher rate tax payer.
When doing my self assessment I've occasionally experimented with the calculation tool to see what would happen if I doubled or halved my charitable giving that I've declared gift aid on. It doesn't seem to make any difference. However if I remove my salary (hence making my declaration of gift aid false) then my charitable giving adds to my tax bill (presumably because my declaration would have been false and therefore I have to pay back to the government the money that they paid on the gift aid).
However that may not be a good guide as my situation is complex with PAYE already paid on one source of income but not on another, which then attracts an additional tax bill when I add it up and declare it at the end of the year. Interestingly I pay much more tax as a result of getting income from two sources than if I'd earned the money from a single source. It means that running my additional business wouldn't be worthwhile unless I got over a certain threshold, which could have been quite a disincentive.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Well I suppose there might be a certain number of gift aid contributions that are paid for people who are on benefit or do not earn £11,000 to reach the basic rate - and who, perhaps by genuine error, are not aware that the charity isn't entitled to it. There might be another group of people who have donated 4 times more than the amount they've paid in tax in that tax year.
I don't know how big this (probably unintentional) fraud would be, but I guess that could be seen as a small government subsidy to the gift aid system.
[ 12. April 2016, 08:24: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Sorry, that's what happens when I post while exhausted from travelling half way round the world the previous day. Message to self: do not attempt simple arithmatic after a 20h journey, even with a few hours sleep.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I have to admit to being a higher rate tax payer.
When doing my self assessment I've occasionally experimented with the calculation tool to see what would happen if I doubled or halved my charitable giving that I've declared gift aid on. It doesn't seem to make any difference. However if I remove my salary (hence making my declaration of gift aid false) then my charitable giving adds to my tax bill (presumably because my declaration would have been false and therefore I have to pay back to the government the money that they paid on the gift aid).
Yes, when you fill in the boxes for the online self-assessment form, it calculates how much tax you have to pay. If you've declared that you've earned less than the gift aid you say you've donated, then it will make you pay it.
Of course, this only works if one is keeping good records of the gift aided donations and one also declares them all.
quote:
However that may not be a good guide as my situation is complex with PAYE already paid on one source of income but not on another, which then attracts an additional tax bill when I add it up and declare it at the end of the year. Interestingly I pay much more tax as a result of getting income from two sources than if I'd earned the money from a single source. It means that running my additional business wouldn't be worthwhile unless I got over a certain threshold, which could have been quite a disincentive.
Isn't the difference due to National Insurance rather than the tax? I think everyone should be paying the same amount of tax for the same earning - no matter on how many different jobs or sources one has - but there will be a difference in NI payments depending on the form of employment or self employment.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I think there may also be poor people who don't pay Income Tax at all, yet always ask for their donations to be Gift Aided. This is apparently all too easy when donating on line (you automatically tick the box) or over the phone (when the operator asks, "Do you want that Gift Aided at no cost to yourself?"
I guess HMRC doesn't bother checking up on occasional small amounts.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
At least some of the fraud is due to people collecting for a charity that is not genuine. Though, they must be running a pretty good con to actually succeed in getting Gift Aid. Presumably some of that 170 million is higher-rate tax payers getting conned into giving to a bogus charity, filling in a Gift Aid declaration for it and then including it in their tax-return. But, it would still be small change compared to the amount the bogus charity got from donations by the well-meaning and generous people they've conned. Money that would likely have gone to legitimate charities if not for the crooks.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think there may also be poor people who don't pay Income Tax at all, yet always ask for their donations to be Gift Aided. This is apparently all too easy when donating on line (you automatically tick the box) or over the phone (when the operator asks, "Do you want that Gift Aided at no cost to yourself?"
I guess HMRC doesn't bother checking up on occasional small amounts.
This highlights another anomaly, namely that while those on lower incomes may not be paying income tax they are almost certain to be paying other taxes and duties which also go to HMRC. This form of taxation ought to qualify the giver in the same way as income tax does.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
This highlights another anomaly, namely that while those on lower incomes may not be paying income tax they are almost certain to be paying other taxes and duties which also go to HMRC. This form of taxation ought to qualify the giver in the same way as income tax does.
Well the only tax that everyone is paying almost without exception no matter what their income is would be VAT. And that would be a devil to manage if gift aid was applicable to it - because VAT is already a stupidly complicated taxation system.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
Of course they could simply change the system so that charities automatically get an extra 25% from the government from income given by individuals resident in the UK, so people would no longer have to keep track of how much they've given (if they do - I don't, really, other than for regular donations) and charities wouldn't have to ask them to sign a gift aid form.
I do think though that gift aid should not apply to non-cash gifts (such as items donated to a charity shop), this always sounded dodgy to me when they introduced it and also seems unnecessarily complicated.
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Not to mention the complication of museums and stately homes which are registered charities having to charge both a "standard rate" and a "gift aid rate" for entry. When I first encountered this I thought it was because they were being greedy - but it's a Government requirement ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) .
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
