To think if you can no longer afford school fees...

The evidence from the studies of household income seem to say different.

BUT

That 18k is only the average, and there will be good number of secondary schools that are lower fees. They will also have lower VAT.

For example a 10k per year one would attract 1500 PA extra, which is 125 a month.

I know there will be a very small minority of people who have absolutely stretched their budgets to cracking point, and it is very unfortunate for them, but it will certainly not be a majority. I don't think very many households at all will be privately educating that don't have any wiggle room in their budget for 28 pounds a week.

That’s only really true for your public school parents - many of the lessor private school parents are not really in the earnings brackets that people are assuming. Of course it is a luxury but it’s one that over the last decade people have given up everything to afford (and not bloody sky tv) so there is no affordability left.

It will probably raise about as much money as is predicted, which will then be used in the education sector.

I think this sort of tax is actually one of the few left open in order to raise extra funds. The current tax level is the highest for decades, there is a cost of living crisis, and the reaction to any proposed changes in Income tax, IHT, CGT etc met with waves of vitriol and spite from those who it might effect ( and some who it won't) so that it isn't possible. If you think these threads have been bad for parental threats, then you will wait to see what happens when any tax increases are proposed.

I think painting it as spiteful and vindictive is inaccurate though.

So it won’t then raise much money at all then? So why have it?

“People will just plan their finances a little differently” is exactly what Tory voters said about the bedroom tax and the child benefit cap. I don’t notice any massive improvement in the welfare budget that was generated by those policies, but it allowed some people to feel quite self-righteous about penalising others whilst making no overall gains or savings. Could it be that you’re falling for the same trick, only designed to make some voters feel self-righteous about penalising some other voters’ children, whilst it having no real effect on inequality or the overall tax take at all?

If you want to penalise a few kids of a few parents who are just slightly better off than you whilst feeling good about it, then at least own it. That’s your prerogative! Voters indulge in tribal politics to penalise others all the time. I had, however, thought better of Labour in this regard, and am disappointed that they are choosing virtue signalling over genuine progressive change (a hint about the general trajectory of the next government, maybe?)

But kidding yourself that it’s a great blow against privilege which will revolutionise the state education system is just wishful fantasy, however.

I know its not a small amount.

But remember that the amount for the average fee will come to 2.7k, or 225 quid a month. Again, not small, BUT, people who were already spending 1.5K a month on fees, will probably not see it as that much and have some room for that in discretionary spending.

Even when it multiplies with extra children.

Haha - I love it how you think it is so easy to magic up another £3-4k per child per year. That money has generally already been taxed so earnings of c£7-8k per child per year. That is for a cheap private school and doesn’t include the lunches and transport that will likely also be taxed.

that’s not a small amount you know

"It will mainly be people who were planning to go private who will now not choose to."

Again, I don't think so, 15% is possibly not enough for those who were planning to, to change their minds, maybe those who were really stretched, but this will only be a tiny minority.

People will just plan their finances a little differently.

How many children in the UK are educated as a figure not a percentage?

I agree. It will mainly be people who were planning to go private who will now not choose to.
So more dc applying to the state schools.

@dunkdemunder

Meh, there won't be that many. Most will stay in and parents who were planning on educating their children privately will in the most part change their spending plans accordingly.

@Another76543

And many people aren’t prepared to pay any more tax to fund that improvement. They think that others (private school parents) should pay more towards it though.
Which is ironic as every private school dc that turns to state will end up costing the taxpayer more.

Thanks - absolutely! I’m really disappointed to see this kind of policy from Labour. I’m a lifelong labour voter, but I’d like to see genuine structural change, not spiteful policies with limited effects - window-dressing, in other words.

As I posted above, DD has just got a big bursary and scholarship award to a local independent. I’d much prefer to send her state, if we had a good catchment school. (We don’t - and are in a catchment-only area, so no other choices.) But the key thing is that she wants to do academic subjects, especially languages and Classics, and instruments, that simply aren’t on offer anywhere in the state sector where we are. She’s desperate to do Latin, Greek, Classical Civilisation, Italian and other minority languages, which she has a talent in, and which no state school in our entire Local Authority offers. No amount of “middle class parent pressure” is going to magically produce Latin, Italian and Ancient Greek GCSE teachers and courses in our local state schools.

Is closing the only route for ordinary kids to these subjects progressive? There’s zero chance we could find tutors to teach all these subjects to exam level for five years. God forbid any kids might actually be interested in the genuine intellectual and academic aspects of education! But “I can’t/don’t want to do Latin so nobody apart from the rich should”, is not the flex against “privilege” that you think it is. It’s dog-in-the-manger stuff, not progressive policymaking.

The wealthy and super-wealthy will be completely unaffected. But this, as others have said in the thread above, is a way of polarising education even further for middle-income kids - it won’t remotely affect the well-off. That’s why you don’t tax education: it has unintended effects that aren’t actually very positive at all. It makes me feel pretty dismayed about the future of this incoming Labour administration, actually - it makes me think they aren’t really going to address the issues facing us at all, if they don’t appear to understand them at a basic level.

@DingDongWitchDingDong

No, but people often like to claim things about other countries without looking at the tax rates.

@Aladdinzane that's nothing new though is it.

@Another76543

"And many people aren’t prepared to pay any more tax to fund that improvement. They think that others (private school parents) should pay more towards it though."

Finland's highest marginal tax rate is 60% isn't it?

And many people aren’t prepared to pay any more tax to fund that improvement. They think that others (private school parents) should pay more towards it though.

You don't have to ban private schools to improve state education. Finland didn't, despite what people think. But you do have to raise more money through taxation. A lot more. And no one is prepared to be honest about what it will take.

@elastamum ,

‘so why not campaign seriously for better education for all the not so lucky parents who don't have these things’.

The problem is the power of a campaign is generally driven by money and influence. The majority of people with money and influence have distanced themselves from normal school so couldn’t care less.

What you are actually arguing for is private school abolition and ‘bussing’, to make the rich and powerful make all schools good enough, as their child might actually end up there.

Of course, that would never work (as this is the one policy which would genuinely get the wealthy to emigrate) but saying ‘campaign for better education’ is like saying ‘campaign for better GPs’- anyone with money already uses a private GP.

@DingDongWitchDingDong

It would especially go down like a lead balloon by those who live in the best catchment areas as being near an outstanding school adds 40k or more to house prices.

The level of vitriol here aimed at parents who use private schools is quite staggering. It's a classic dog whistle policy and really disappointing from labour. Instead of a manifesto promise of major investment that ensures every parent has access to a state education rated at least good, we have a promise of less than 1 extra teacher per school, paid for by an educational tax that nobody really knows the impact of. All those with outstanding state schools are lucky, all those who get their children into grammar school or get state SEN provision are also lucky, so why not campaign seriously for better education for all the not so lucky parents who don't have these things. Taxing 7% of parents might make some people feel better, but it won't touch the sides of improving educational outcomes for the masses. I'm a labour activist and an ex private school parent. I would really like state education to be so good that everyone has a good local school, and SEN provision was available when needed. This policy won't deliver either of these.

Good Lord, that would go down like a lead balloon.

Imagine this. Everyone just went to their local school. Abolish OFSTED’s snobby grading system based on who can perform the best box ticking exercise on a single day. Go to your local school. Before long things will even themselves out.

Why on earth would you presume I'd be sacrificing their future?

There are teachers in my family and I'm educated to masters level. I would be perfectly capable of providing educational support should it be needed.

As it is though they are thriving in small classes with fantastic teaching in a comp right on my doorstep.

That's what I dont get. If you live in an area where schools are poor performing, and you could comfortably afford to send them to private school, as in your situation, it's bizarre that you would sacrifice the future of your children on the alter of your principles.

I also didn't chose - family here before 1600s