To think State education is really poor?

Almost like a system that has been tried in the UK before and debunked?

A bit like the idea that the 11+ helps social mobility.

I am already paying for DDs place at private and therefore saving the tax payer having to fund her place. So we are already paying for our choice, you speak as if we get it for free

But it should be the norm for state school. If state schools were great then most people wouldn't choose private.
No party is going to change this as it costs too much.
I think some of the 90,000 SEN DC in private schools would disagree with private being a luxury when their needs can't be met in state schools

It is a choice and private schooling is a luxury service. You said yourself all the things you were buying, the right environment and breadth of subjects to find your 'passion', avoid the National Curriculum and something about being able to do sport outdoors every day or similar. This is not the norm in state schools and you are opting for the luxury option.

VAT on school fees is just about the most ass about face policy, born purely from the politics of envy; sure to get a cheer from some but damaging in so many ways. The VAT they'll raise will be a drop in the ocean to the state once the consultants and procurement companies get their hands on the cash, but it will make a huge difference to families.

The tax will push strivers away from private schools, making fee paying schools even more the preserve of those with generational wealth than it already is. Those with middle to higher incomes that value education above fancy cars, fancy homes, fancy holidays and designer labels will become pushed out and those that would otherwise attend these schools, will fall back into the state system in this envy driven race to the bottom, while the landed gentry have nothing more than a tiny scratch on their wealth.

Does anyone actually truly think making it more expensive will bring about a more equitable education system?

Charitable status? I can get on board with that aspect being eliminated, but VAT is just short sighted envy.

Only in this country is education seen as a luxury. Sweden actually give vouchers and parents can choose where to spend them and top up themselves if they choose private schools.

So what for some DC it is all about creating the right peaceful and nurturing environment for them to 'find their passion' and 'avoid the godawful national curriculum" and for others it's fine to pushed out to work at 14? Honestly!

I know all this @twistyizzy. Jaffa'cakes' or biscuits and all that jazz. It's just that many believe that luxuries should have VAT paid and private education is a choice and a luxury. That's all there is to some people agreeing with it I think.

Well forcing non-academic kids to stay on in school until 16 definitely doesn't work.
I work with these kids and trust me they would be much happier to have left formal school at 14 and gone into skills training. Forcing square pegs into round holes never works.

@PrincessTeaSet "It could be a chance to genuinely train young people in non academic subjects according to their interests and according to the skills shortages in this country. "

So at the age of 10 you divide children into academic and non academic and train the majority to fill skill shortages. Right.

There are a couple of generalizations posted recently I'd love to see backed up-

@opticalconclusion "Nonetheless - Labour do not encourage people to succeed."

and @Papyrophile "No, social mobility plummeted when the universal 11+ was abolished."

Funny that the EU don't see it as a luxury as it is illegal to tax education in the EU

I’m not sure I agree with that.

The idea that it is an obvious move to tax it holds little sway when no other country in the world does it and many including the EU make it illegal to levy tax on education.

Most probably listen to Labour’s shockingly disingenuous headlines and believe the numbers. If they understood the reality that it will likely cost the tax payer money they may think differently.

It is not a serious economic policy but one designed to appeal to ill-informed voters who want to see others who may be in a better financial position than them punished.

It a sad indictment of our society that such a move is being considered. The demonisation of those who subsides the majority really needs to stop.

We can only ever speak for ourselves

VAT isn't a luxury tax. That's a misconception eg ice cream is taxed but frozen yoghurt is zero rated. Not as simple as luxury items. Dried cherries are zero rated for VAT.

Speak for yourself.

That's quite a negative view of other people's motivations. I think it's more that it has support because private education is viewed as a luxury choice and that they believe the luxury should be taxed. Or maybe they just don't care either way.

I’d argue that most of the posters in favour of the policy support it because they like the idea someone else will be paying.

Of course. It’s an extra tax that isn’t theirs

Although it might feel good I doubt it will do much for education, unfortunately

There are better ways to improve state

I’d argue that most of the posters in favour of the policy support it because they like the idea someone else will be paying.

Tax proposals that impact a small minority of people are always popular with the masses. It doesn’t make them right.

The reality is if we are talking about improving state education the way to replicate what happens in countries widely deemed to have a better system than UK is to tax lower and middle earners far more heavily. People earning 20k-50k salaries pay way more tax in those countries. Maybe we should all start campaigning for that instead?

The majority of people vote in self interest though so that's ridiculous. Who would vote for a party who would make them worse off (not just talking about financially worse off)?

With such hypothetical defectors, is it just pure coincidence that the scales fall from their eyes at the same time as Labour comes up with a policy that directly impacts them?

@Twistyizzy posters are clearly free to comment as they please. Other posters are also free to decide how much weight posts carry and the level of self-interest of a poster in the issue has a bearing on that. That's all.

Why does my previous voting record matter? Can I only comment if I have/have never voted Labour?

I’ve never voted Labour in my entire life. I’m not sure that makes me any more qualified than others to be critical of their awful anti education policies.

Arguably those who have voted Labour before and now see them for what they really are should be listened to even more.

Your continued avoidance to answer my question - did you vote Labour before when you knew all this? - speaks volumes. Fine to go along with it all when it does not have a personal impact?This is precisely why such posts don’t have credibility when arguing against VAT on the school fees. There is so much trumped up speculation about anticipated impact on society when it is clear that in many cases it has much more to do with vested interest than anything bigger.