How many points should a chess tutor ideally have?

Anyone is welcomed to contribute. 

Maybe 500 points higher than the student would be a good general rule. Although I have a student who is only 300 points weaker than I am

Any 2200+ is an excellent choice for students under 2000.

I noticed that a lot of high rated players charge a lot.

Considering that I am only round the 900-1000 that means that my tutor is going to be a pretty mediocre player. 

A 1000 rated player could learn a lot from a 1500 rated player. 

And either way, I wouldn't consider a 1400 - 1500 rated player to be mediocre. 

It's not a very good idea for 1000 player learn from 1500 rated player.

1) 1500 player is still very weak to teach chess. Most likely he has a lot of bad habits/missunderstandings which he can teach his "student". I'd say that minimum is around 1800, to be able to teach chess.

2) Sometimes, it's not good to learn even from high-rated player because he is simply weak teacher. He might play well himself, but can't teach, explain thing in easy way at all. You need not only strong player. but strong teacher as well!

Also not true. On higher levels higher rated player can even learn from lower rated player. For example, 2400 can learn from 2300.

It's quite possible that lower rated player is very strong in one particular area(opening prep, planning skills, etc) where higher rated player is weaker. 

1800 bottom line - anything lower would have misconceptions about the game that may be wrongly taught to students... things such as "never move the f pawn!"

haha im just as strong as my tutor

Don't get me wrong guys I am not saying 1500 players are bad, but I have seen 1500 players lose to beginner players. 

Never play f6

Always play f6! Haha

f6 is key move here

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/how-to-grind

I just lost to my friend who is 800 and he had 98 accuracy in both games

it's all relative. I could probably beat 1500 players blindfolded but to someone sub 1200 they are like gods.

+1

I would argue that a tutor should be a solid player (rarely lose).

I agree, high rated players who doesn't have any title, charges high amount for coaching maybe because they're not called for international tournaments, they don't have sponsors. Their income mainly adds up from there job earnings, prize money from local or national tournaments and from the chess coaching.....

But what's up with the titled player charging higher cost? They don really need it, they do have a valid reason for high pricing i.e. they are much better than untitled player. But believe me its mostly price for fame....

A begginer can learn alot from a 500 player, and a 500 player can learn alot from a 1000 player. Jeremy Silman once said that some of the greatest chess teachers in the world are between 1400 and 1500 elo. Also, I struggle to belive a 2400 would hire a 2300 as their tutor. Most of the cases of a lower rated player working with a higher rated one are only at the very top level, and even then the lower rated player usually takes the roll of a trainer or second, rather than a "tutor" which is what the topic asked.