To think parents of private education school children will be fine

Sigh, more "personal experience" to counter general points

I hope you weren't privately educated.

Really…..?!?!?

For them to have quadrupled their wealth, they will have been given a load of tax breaks I’m assuming. And whatever taxes they are paying clearly are not funding the NHS or any other public service.

Nobody needs or deserves so much wealth that disabled people should pay the price by having all their support systems taken away.

This may be true, but it still doesn’t explain why you think they’re not paying their way.

Another poster on another thread said it better than me.

’When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression’

Easy, they quadrupled their wealth under the first four years of the coalition.

How are ‘rich’ people not already paying their way?

Nope a fair world is where nobody gets shat on, especially the most vulnerable in society.

It says a lot that you think rich people having to pay their way is them being shat on.

Its hardly appropriate to compare people paying for private education with refugees, merely on the basis they are both minorities. Simply being part of a group of whom there are few, does not afford you victim status just because the majority fail to support your interests, and a failure to support your interests is not the same as demonising you. No more than a change of policy that is going to be more expensive for you means you are a victim of discrimination.

There are all sorts of other things that come into play, comparative advantage, privilege and power, that mean the two things are entirely different.

Not to mention, I've seen no evidence of an attempt to pit anyone against people who pay school fees. As I said before, the majority don't care, and those who disagreed with the VAT exemption or with private education in principle haven't been led there by this campaign. They are typically long held views based on the sort of society people would prefer to see.

If the school has decided to make these cuts before it's even certain that the policy will be enacted, when or what the effect will be, it strongly suggests that they are already in financial difficulties for other reasons, and are choosing to blame their problems on vat (labour) rather than government mismanagement of the economy (Tories).

Even the most successful schools are struggling to fill some roles. My oldest son goes to one of the highest performing state schools in the country and he has been without a chemistry teacher for part of the year. Nothing to do with budgets.

It won’t raise much if anything at all. If 10% of children are removed from private schools, it raises nothing. You have just admitted that it’s a policy that pits the majority against the minority. An election gimmick that creates vitriol in the same way that the Brexit campaign focused on immigration. It’s not clever, it’s nasty.

I don't need to ask myself. I know. Whether the policy raises enough to fund the plans against it in the manifesto or not, it will undeniably raise money the country greatly needs. Importantly it will do so without alienating the vast majority of the electorate who couldn't care less about school fees, while actively appealing to those who see private education as a significant contributor to social inequality. Its a clever policy that is only unpopular with the small minority it effects, a minority that struggles to marshal much support for its cause. So really the better question would be why on earth wouldn't they?

"t the private sector so ask yourself why they are imposing this VAT policy."

Maybe so they can say that they aren't doing it from general tax rises? Go look at the thread on Labour and tax and see what a shower of shit it is when anyone suggests that people could pay a bit more,

Maybe, because private schooling has an inelastic PED, the increase in price will have a far smaller corresponding change in demand meaning it will actually raise some money?

Although am sure your reason will be far more fun.

And do you know how much they have allocated for each nursery? £11,000. Total pie in the sky.

There are already 2500 vacancies in state schools. Where are the new teachers coming from?

The big picture is that they could improve state schools without impacting the private sector so ask yourself why they are imposing this VAT policy.

That's a clumsy bit of maths there.

There are schools which have teacher shortages due to budgetary constraints, there are schools that don't.

There are schools, like Camden School for Girls, who have been impacted by the budget cuts in a way that it means that the no longer can provide A level classes in subjects when the demand to study that subject is from very few students. There are others who can't afford to bring in a maths specialist in primary/or for early years in secondary.

The spending is going to be focused.

But hey, you keep up with the quick maths, man's not hot.

The private school my daughter attended until very recently are going to save costs by putting a stop to sharing all facilities, cancelling all joint teaching and tuition initiatives including funding a number of SEN positions. Bursaries will go too which, sadly, means a number of students will be lost. Relationships with a number of schools in Europe and Africa will be limited to social media.

There are a number of other financial options which means any increase in fees will be kept to the absolute minimum without the need for redundancies.

The money raised by the policy will fund new jobs. 3000 new nurseries will need catering, cleaning and outdoor staff. There will be new jobs created for teachers and other support roles in schools. Plus new work experience opportunities etc. If there will be redundancies in areas where the schools are the largest employer, that will be difficult for those people. But government policy has to be about the big picture of doing the greatest good for the greatest number and objectively, surely its better for a few jobs to be lost to create many more?

It won’t raise that and how is one teacher for every three schools a meaningful impact?!

’it will bring in about, or a bit more than the IFS project’

(but again with the unbased sweeping statements)

It will bring in about, or a bit more than the IFS project which is a 2% increase to the total schools budget. A good bit of focused spending in areas of need will be greatly impactful.

I won't cause many job losses or much disruption to children.

( but again with the emotional appeals)

The net benefit will not be greater. Jobs lost and children’s education disrupted for little or no revenue.

"And you still haven’t explained why people
losing their jobs in the state sector means it’s fine for the same to happen in the private sector."

I didn't say it was fine, I was asking if you cared so much then. See it's easy to make appeals to emotion to try to support your point, but it's not as easy to defend them when you are asked for consistency.

"I spent most of my childhood with my dad being in and out of work so I know the dreadful impact it has on families."

I'm sorry to hear that. But the impact is over blown and the number left redundant will be minor.

The net benefit of the policy will still be greater.

"If they weren’t used to enhance your points, why even mention them?"

Because they were relevant to dismiss personal attacks. One which was that I obviously hated private school parents, I don't and have never expressed this sentiment. Another was that I didn't understand PED, which quite frankly was insulting.

Neither was said to support any of my arguments regarding VAT and private schools. There is a difference.

I’m always caring about people losing their jobs. I spent most of my childhood with my dad being in and out of work so I know the dreadful impact it has on families.

And you still haven’t explained why people
losing their jobs in the state sector means it’s fine for the same to happen in the private sector. If you don’t see it as a punishment, what is your justification?