Latest news with #taxpayerfunding
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Peers set to vote TODAY on hiking their 'overnight' allowances by 20% and being able to claim for staying in their own London properties… on top of £371 a day tax free
Peers are poised to sign off hiking their 'overnight' allowances by 20 per cent today - and will be able to claim £63 to stay in their own London properties. The House of Lords is due to consider a recommendation to ramp up entitlements on top of the tax-free £371 'per diem' members get for attending sittings. Under the proposals, those who declare their main residence is outside the capital are set to be able to claim £125 per night towards hotels - or private clubs - instead of the £103 at present. Nearly 100 peers received £57,000 worth of overnight allowances in December. Meanwhile, owners of second properties in London will be able to get taxpayer cash to use them for the first time. That will start at £63 a night. The plans from the ruling House of Lords Commission are expected to be approved this afternoon, and will take effect immediately. The cross-party committee stressed that those who claim the allowance must be 'away from their registered residential address for the purpose of attending sittings of the House'. Receipts also need to be filed. The peers said they recognised that some members would be maintaining properties they own or rent in London. 'We therefore propose introducing an additional allowance to contribute towards other accommodation costs, such as for those who rent or own accommodation that is not their registered residential address residence, in order to attend sittings of the House,' the report said. Most Lords are not paid salaries, and can instead claim for every day they attend. The standard per diem for members of the House of Lords rose to £371 last month, in line with the 2.8 per cent increase in MPs' salaries. With the House sitting for roughly 150 days a year, that gives a potential income of £55,600. A normal worker would require a salary of around £81,000 to take that sum home after tax. Sessional returns show that the average length of the sitting day in 2023-24 was six hours and 17 minutes - although peers could have been working outside the chamber. Current rules allow peers to claim on 'attendance travel costs' including mileage, rail fares and plane tickets. A House of Lords spokesman said: 'Members from across the UK should be able to attend House of Lords business, scrutinise and revise laws and hold the government to account. 'To reflect the cost of residing overnight in London when attending the House of Lords, an allowance of £63 per night is proposed for those who incur accommodation costs but whose registered residential address is outside the Greater London area. 'For those Members who require hotel accommodation because they do not live in Greater London, an increase in the current overnight maximum allowance to £125 per night is proposed. The plans from the ruling House of Lords Commission are expected to be approved this afternoon, and will take effect immediately 'This is equal to the lowest rate civil servants can claim for hotel costs in London. 'The Lords chamber should be accessible to all, regardless of someone's financial position or where they live. 'It is important that membership of the House reflects the whole of the UK, and that Members who don't live in London or its environs are not prevented from attending the House due to the cost of doing so.'
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court to weigh nation's first religious charter school: What's at stake in blockbuster case?
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider whether the Catholic Church in Oklahoma can run the nation's first religious charter school, a potentially major expansion of the use of taxpayer money for religious education. The court's decision is expected to turn on whether charter schools – which are publicly funded but have private operators – are public schools under the law. If they are, religious charter schools could violate the Constitution's prohibition on the government backing a religion. If they're not, prohibiting the church from participating in the state's charter school program could be discrimination under the Constitution's promise that Americans can practice religion freely. In recent cases where those dual aspects of the First Amendment have been in tension, the Supreme Court came down on the side of protecting religious exercise, blurring the line separating church and state. Here's what you need to know about one of the most high-profile cases the court is deciding this term. More: Supreme Court hears arguments on blockbuster religious charter school case: live updates Charter schools are tuition-free schools funded through taxpayer dollars but run independently of local school boards. They have more flexibility in how they operate than traditional schools. Oklahoma's 30 charter schools educated about 7% of the state's public-school students during the 2022-2023 school year. Nationally, there are more than 8,000 charter schools serving nearly 3.8 million students, according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Yes. In 2002, the Supreme Court said taxpayer dollars could be used to help parents pay for tuition at private religious schools. One of the justices who dissented in that 5-4 decision, now-retired Justice David Souter, called the scale of public assistance to religious schools approved by the court 'unprecedented.' And vouchers cover only a portion of the cost of a private school. Oklahoma provides vouchers up to $7,500 for parents to send their children to private schools of their choice, including religious ones. More: Will claims of anti-Catholic bias prove pivotal in blockbuster Supreme Court case? In a trio of cases since 2017, the court has allowed taxpayer funds to flow to religious organizations. Most recently, the court said Maine couldn't exclude religious schools from an indirect aid program based on the schools' religious use of the funds. "The state pays tuition for certain students at private schools – so long as the schools are not religious," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in 2022 for the 6-3 majority of conservative justices. "That is discrimination against religion." In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court was continuing 'to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the framers fought to build. She expressed 'growing concern for where this court will lead us next.' The Catholic Church's two diocese in Oklahoma formed a nonprofit corporation called St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School, Inc. In 2023, the nonprofit applied to participate in Oklahoma's charter school program. The school projected an initial enrollment of 500 students. More: Pride puppies and a charter school: a look at the blockbuster religion cases at the Supreme Court The K-12 school would be open to all Oklahomans who want a 'robust Catholic education' that includes teaching 'Catholic faith and morals.' Students would be required to attend two all-school masses, though exemptions are available. The state's governing body for charter schools voted 3-2 to approve the church's application. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond sued the governing body, arguing the charter school board's contract with the church's nonprofit corporation was illegal. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled 6-2 last year that charter schools are public schools and state law requires public education to be secular. The court also said a Catholic charter school would violate the federal Constitution's clause aimed at keeping religion separate from government. Dig deeper Will claims of anti-Catholic bias prove pivotal in blockbuster Supreme Court case? Both the state's charter school board and the nonprofit created by the Catholic dioceses asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in. The court consolidated the two appeals into one case although both the school board and the school are represented by different attorneys who will each get to speak during the oral arguments. Oklahoma's governor and attorney general – both Republicans – are on opposite sides of the issue. Drummond, the attorney general, has said allowing the Catholic charter school would 'open the floodgates and force taxpayers to fund all manner of religious indoctrination, including radical Islam or even the Church of Satan.' Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt has criticized what he says is Drummond's 'open hostility against religion.' Under the Trump administration, the Justice Department changed its position that charter schools act like government entities. The court granted Trump's solicitor general time during the oral arguments to make its case that Oklahoma can't bar religious charter schools. The court is deciding whether the state's charter schools are 'public,' which would allow the state to say they can't be religious. They are also deciding whether Oklahoma can reject religious charter schools without violating American's constitutional right to practice their religion. The church and the Oklahoma governing body that backed their proposed virtual charter school argue that charter schools aren't 'public,' because that terms applies only to the fact that charter schools are free to students and funded through taxpayer dollars. Charter schools retain enough independence from the state to keep it from being a government entity, they say. And once the state allowed private entities to operate charter schools, blocking the Catholic Church from doing so would unconstitutionally discriminate against religion. Because no student has to attend the school, the government is not imposing religion on anyone, they argue. Drummond, the Oklahoma attorney general, says charter schools are public in any ordinary sense of the word. They are created and funded by the state, are heavily regulated by the state, have to follow anti-discrimination laws, are free and open to all students and their teachers can join state retirement and insurance plans. That's why 46 states, including Oklahoma, and the federal government define charter schools as public schools, Drummond says. If Oklahoma's requirement that charter schools be both public and nonsectarian is unconstitutional, he argues, then so are everyone else's – a result that would create 'chaos and confusion for millions of charter-school students.' The Oklahoma attorney general, says the nation's founders were justifiably concerned about the government giving an official stamp of approval to religion. And keeping religious instruction out of public schools – a uniquely influential environment − helps promote tolerance for different political and religious views, Drummond argues. St. Isidore and the charter school board say opening up the program to religious schools will expand educational choices, especially for low-income families. If the Supreme Court sides with St. Isidore, thousands of Catholic and other religious schools across the nation could transform into charter schools, according to Michael Petrilli, the president of the Fordham Institute, a right-leaning think tank. How many convert, however, will depend in part on what rules they would have to follow, such as whether they could exclude LGBTQ+ students or staff. 'The Court − if it finds that states must allow religious schools − will need to spell all this out,' Petrilli wrote. 'If not, these questions are likely to be litigated for years to come.' The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools sees the case as an 'existential threat not just to the fabric of public charter schools, but to their continued existence.' If charter schools are considered private, not public, that would jeopardize the funding of charter schools in states that ban public funding for private schools, they told the Supreme Court in a filing. 'Unable or unwilling to sponsor private charter schools, some states may decide to place charter schools under the type of uniform, top-down oversight that stifled public school innovation in the first place,' the association wrote. Because Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the case, a 4-4 deadlock is possible. That would mean the state supreme court's decision rejecting religious charter schools would remain. Barrett did not give a reason for her recusal. But she's close friends with the Notre Dame Law School professor who was an early legal adviser to St. Isidore. Pride puppies and a charter school A look at the blockbuster religion cases at the Supreme Court A decision is expected by summer. The court is also deciding whether parents with religious objections can request that their children be excused from class when books with LGBTQ+ characters are being used. And they're deciding whether a Wisconsin Catholic charitable organization should be exempt from state unemployment taxes. During both oral arguments, the court appeared likely to side with the religious groups. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: What to know about Supreme Court case on religious charter schools
Telegraph
19-05-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Taxpayers forced to pay £300m to bail out train driver gold-plated pensions
Taxpayers have handed at least £300m to retired train drivers because a government-backed pension scheme cannot afford its payments, The Telegraph can reveal. The Railways Pension Scheme received an average of £19m a year in top-up payments between 2008 and 2023, funded directly by the Department for Transport. However, the scheme refused to divulge how much public money it received between 1994 and 2007, while the Department for Transport admitted it did not know how much was handed over. The Government guarantees the pensions promised before privatisation in 1994, but John Ralfe, a pensions consultant, said it was not being transparent, and warned that taxpayers were on the hook for almost £500m more. He said: 'As well as sorting out the operational mess of railways, the Government must sort out the mess of railway pensions.'
