It’s wrong to say that state schools pay more tax than independent counterparts

The Barclay Review proposed that the rates relief provided to charities should no longer be available to independent schools (“Charity status of private schools under threat”, 9 April).

The justification was to end a supposed unfairness in treatment between state and independent schools, because the state schools, not being charities, don’t receive any relief but must pay the full amount liable.

This argument is disingenuous. To provide greater transparency of local government finances, new arrangements were introduced to show comparative costs with the private sector.

All local authority buildings were given a non-domestic rates liability. Under this scheme state schools are given state money that they hand back to the state when the tax falls due.

That state schools suddenly had to pay rates didn’t mean they faced a new unfunded burden.

As charities, independent schools already received rates relief. To claim that because state schools “pay’’ 100 per cent of non-domestic rates, but independent schools (after their 80 per cent charitable relief) pay only 20 per cent is absurd.

The independent sector pays 20 per cent of its tax liability while the state sector pays nothing. If there’s an injustice it is that the independent sector must pay non-domestic rates at all.

The real injustice is that one group of schools must find money to pay its tax liability, but another has its whole liability paid for on its behalf by those issuing the bill – effectively getting 100 per cent rates relief.

The Government should abolish all tax on educational establishments and the monies given to state schools to repay could be reduced, thus putting more monies into state schools.

DOUG CLARK Muir Wood Grove, Currie