If you're worried about rising private school fees..

[CurlewKate]

... why not just get a better paid job? It apparently works for poor people.

Why there is a differentiator between the approach people have with those on benefits, ‘saying eat lentils etc’, is those people are not contributing financially to society.

Those in private schools are often already paying lots in taxes, loss of personal allowance. If someone said to them ‘eat lentils’. The response ‘would be why bother’?I already pay enough in taxes? I’ll move abroad and work somewhere where my experience is valued.

So then you are losing highly skilled net contributors. The Government need to sell this country to this cohort of individuals, so they won’t say that to them!

While not related to private school fees, we already have this with people retiring in their 50s as working is just not worth it from a tax perspective. This has a massive impact on UK productivity. My fear putting VAT on school fees is more individuals (who can) will look for work overseas and send their children to international school.

It may not be right, and I appreciate people on benefits may not be able to work, may contribute in other ways to the UK, but the GDP is critical for our country’s success, and therefore the communications to poorer people will be less encouraging that to the more affluent members of society.

@Drfosters I wasn't criticising your choice. I was sad because you said it made you miserable and ill.

My kids are in private school (which already charges VAT)

How? Why? School fees are VAT exempt.

So the government won't be collecting VAT on them.

I suspect you need to check this school's accounts carefully! Or do you simply mean that, like many other schools, your school is legally a business, rather than legally a charity, so tax on certain items is handled differently.

The government has, totally unsurprisingly, dropped proposals to change the law on charities.

But is very likely to go ahead with VAT on fees. And that'll mean your fees will go up by 20% (unless they are, as you might mean) already charging you 20% over the actual cost.

School fees are discretionary spending for families (unlike things like food, housing, basic clothing etc, which cannot be eliminated from your budget, though amount spent can vary).

So if your choices become unaffordable, you either cut back (basic brands, move to cheaper area, etc) or - in the case of school fees which don't really have a cheaper version readily available - you stop that spending (the "cut out Netflix, make your own coffees, no holiday this year" approach). Or you seek a payment plan whilst you seek to increase your income. Or, if high earners with assets, take a loan or remortgage

But that sport outside of school will have a cost to it. The cost of coaching, the cost of time taking kids to and from training, The cost of taking kids to matches. The cost of taking time off work to be able to get them places at odd times. It may not be as much as private school fees but I bet it adds up. It is much harder to only do sport outside of school without sacrificing academia. It is just a matter of time as my daughter can do 3 hours of sport in a school day but would struggle to do that if it was only after school and she isn’t even a super elite athlete just someone very sporty who just thrives in that sort of environment.

The world is not an equal place though and it never will be. What would drive someone to do better if they didn't have to to achieve the same outcome? Posts like this always remind me of the 10 men go out for beers analogy.
Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.　
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.　

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving).　
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.　

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"　
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"　

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"　

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.　

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill!　

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.　

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

The response ‘would be why bother’?I already pay enough in taxes? I’ll move abroad and work somewhere where my experience is valued

That's just an extreme version of the "move to a cheaper area" version of advice to those wrangling with extremely straightened means. It is indeed a sound approach, and those adopting it should be wished well.

The loss of both neighbours, rich and poor, is a diminution of the community, for both bring value. But the jobs market isn't static, and the higher-paying job is likely to be filled by someone else rapidly. The outflow of people who do the jobs that pay minimum/living wage is much, much more difficult (as anyone who has tried to run a care home or care agency can tell you)

I think people with higher levels of wealth are going to find things feel increasingly uncomfortable. People starting to look at new types of taxation, making mocking posts like this online or or the sort of comments that get dismissed as “the politics of envy” is really just the start of it.

When society is doing well, when all levels are feeling like they are doing ok, are confident and optimistic then the wealthy can pretty much do what they want, they can slip under the radar as few people are paying too much attention to them enjoying their money and privilege.

But when things get tough, when huge and seemingly ever increasing numbers of people are struggling, when the disparity between the top and the bottom gets wider and wider then people stop what they are doing and start to pay a bit more attention to how unevenly the wealth is divided, and how increasingly difficult it is for those without wealth to improve their lot.

The people with the wealth might like to think that it brings them comfort and ease, that it shields them, but that becomes far less true.

What they start to feel instead is growing unease. Unease at the talk of taxing the things that are important to them, like private schools, or their children’s ability to inherit from them and so keep their place towards to top of the pile.

Growing unease at the possibility of things going wrong for them. What would happen if they lost their money? The worse things are for the poorer sections of society, the more horrifying that thought seems - “How secure are we…what if that were me?!”

That unease can grow into real fear - when you see people struggling with so little you start to fear that they want what you have so much they might take it from you. Time to avoid public transport, retreat to “safer” places, build walls, stop engaging with society at large as it starts to look more threatening to you.

But that fear isn’t just about people wanting to take your things. What if they are so angry they just want to hurt you, or your family? Are you a target now?

When times are hard and societies are unequal, wealth doesn’t quite bring the comfort people imagine it will - it breeds distrust and paranoia about the people around you.

All of us, rich or poor, should be invested in making sure that the wealth gap doesn’t get too wide, and that the country brings opportunity, value, pride, and some material comfort for everyone.

If it doesn’t work then everyone will suffer.

I feel very mixed about it. I never thought for one moment I would use a private school, but DD had SEN that were so poorly dealt with in her state school she became extremely unhappy and we moved her to a private school. A lot of kids in her school were the same. For us it was more about trying to give her a more equal chance not get an advantage. Obviously she had an advantage over other kids with similar SEN in state school but she was still disadvantaged against her NT peers. As parents who make this choice are less likely to be loaded than those who use private as a default it will mean many of the children pushed back into state will have SEN which will put additional strain on an already failing system.

@Melonandfalafel let them go, I'll help them pack! This country is already on its knees in terms of underfunding. These rich people paying their taxes, the money generated already doesn't trickle down to the public services enough. Too many managers and chief executives. Maybe if more of them go to live abroad they can open up opportunities for people who will get out of bed for less than 100K per year.

Wow. You are clearly of the same ilk as the partner of the poster whose son and gf had left due to the total ignorant comments he made.
Have you always been this jealous and ignorant or is it a recent thing?

It's not jealousy. It's not understanding how some people's jobs are worth 10 or 100 x what other people's are. It's the years of ignorant comments about the sacrifices made so their children can go to private school, don't people realise that most people are already sacrificing everything they possibly can to literally just live?! It's about being so exhausted all of time from worrying about bills and food and rent.
So don't you think these people have the right to say 'hang on a minute, where was my sympathy?' Because every post I've made I've had tons of 'well you shouldn't have had them' 'two?!! You had TWO?!' 'Can't you just retrain?' 'The OU has courses which are only about £2k (I don't even own a computer or laptop)'

I completely understand parents of children with special needs going private.
Why anyone else would pay for something that is free is beyond me. i just think if a kid is bright and wants to learn then they will do well. My daughter went to a state school and is now at oxbridge. It didn’t cost me a penny and there was zero pressure on her.

@CarrotJanice so you are happy to live in a country where everyone is poor so long there are not people better off in sight. Are you aware that high earners help support the welfare system? They are net contributors. Where do you think the money comes from? You do not need to help me pack I can do it myself. These threads have been such an eye opener for me and my family. To know where we stand in all this.

Many of the truly wealthy will avoid the tax by now paying years up front in fees before this / if this becomes law. I know a few who do this already and get a discount for paying in advance. The others won’t be able to pay so will just move to state. I don’t think this is going to be quite the money spinner people think. Also there are lots of really reasonably priced international schools now. With an EU passport I’d just move mine away so they can carry on their private education without paying this vat. Better health care too!

This is self defeating

You may rejoice when they go but will you pick up the tax burden?

You seem to think that somehow the group of "better off" is static, and that if the current members of it move away, then there will be no-one in those roles.

It really, really isn't like that.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. No one enjoys paying tax but it’s necessary. People in all walks of life can be incredibly entitled sometimes. We need people to rebuild the UK that ask, ‘what can I contribute?’ Life’s takers can leave as far as I’m concerned.

Oh yes, I know because I happen to know many people who would not consider the U.K. at the moment. You may know many who do apparently but may be it is a fact that countries where a brain drain happens do not do well. Even worse when more than half of this country apparently relies on benefits. Good luck and all that.

The fact is every time people say 'oh but the rich people will leave!' no one can really say where they will go. America? With its gun violence? Australia? It's getting hotter by the year. Scandinavian countries? More tax. British people on the whole don't speak other languages well enough to move to non speaking countries. Our country is great for so many things. It's also well placed for climate change. I'm intrigued by where people will move to, Canada?

I dont think it will be spread evenly throughout the country at all but that's the sort of detail I expect the policy won't have looked carefully at.

Considering how differently this works across the country I wonder if this wouldn't have made sense to delegate to a more local level in some way.

I hear this so often- if you think schools re just there to be exam factories then that’s great. ‘My kid went to Oxford and went to state school so why pay?’ Lots of children who go to state school and get amazing grades and go on to oxbridge, if anything it is more advantageous to go to state school if you are academic nowadays.
but there are families who for whatever reason have the choice to send their kids private. They have the money. Either they spend it on private or they give their kids a lump sum but either way the kids are going to see the benefit of the money that others aren’t. You can make massive arguments about wealth inequality and the tax system etc but I don’t believe that putting VaT on school fees is going to make one drop of difference to raising standards at state schools and actually will have the effect of reducing the chance of your child getting into oxbridge.

Because state schools are under resourced and full of children who are disruptive, often because there are issues at home. 🤷🏻‍♀️

I say that as a parent who has used state schools for both of my children. My oldest is at uni now and my youngest is in year 10. They're both doing well but if I'd have known quite how bad the school was, I'd have gone private. My daughter has been diagnosed with autism and doesn't want to move schools as we would move her. 2 year and counting.

Over the last few years, there's been a lack of permanent teachers, less extra curricular activities, worsening pastoral care, less trips, increasing class sizes, lack of opportunities etc.

There are so many disruptive, badly behaved pupils that's it's actually hard for the well behaved kids who want to work hard, to find nice friends.

My kids have had to teach themselves at home at times as the quality of teaching has been so poor. I'd be here all day if I listed all the problems.

A couple of my friends send their kids to private schools and their experiences are a million miles away from our experience of state schools.

I couldn't blame anyone who has the option of private schools for sending their children there. If my kids were in primary now, I'd be finding a good private secondary to send them to.

We are not poor, nor are we super-wealthy, but I don't think anyone benefits from the presence of people who threaten, tantrum, jeer, and try to hold the rest of the country to ransom in a variety of ways because they are irritated that their luxury item is going to cost a bit more.

If you think your family would be happier living in another country, go. It's not the terrifying threat you imagine it to be.

Just reminds me of when Cilla Black and Andrew Lloyd-Webber threatened to leave the country if Labour won in 97. They did - and everyone was like, "ok then, see you later, don't let the door hit your arse on the way out."

You're not gracing the rest of us with your presence. If you feel you'd rather emigrate, and there's somewhere that will have you, go. You don't need to announce your departure. You don't have the clout you think you do.

This country is propped up by oligarchs and billionaires. Your "six-figure salary" and "top rate tax bracket" is a joke to these people. So... bye then.

Begsthequestion · Yesterday 18:22

EasternStandard · Yesterday 18:00

Do you know the numbers?
Show quote history
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09645292.2021.1874878

Begsthequestion
I opened that link and had a quick look. I’m afraid when I got to this part of it I gave up.

Families are grouped into mutually exclusive cohorts, c, based on family income decile and region of residence. There is a trade-off between cohort size and the number of observations in the panel. We distinguish between families with incomes in the tenth decile, in the seventh to the ninth decile, in the fourth to the sixth decile, and families with incomes at or below the third decile across eight British regions (North East and Yorkshire, North-West, the Midlands, East of England, Greater London, South East, South West, and the combined devolved nations of Scotland and Wales). Income deciles were calculated for each survey sample of all non-pensioner families with children in the age bracket 5-15 years in Great Britain. The 32 family cohorts are tracked over the 22 cross-sections of the FRS 1997-2018. Table A3 in the online appendix gives mean cohort sizes. Alternatively, in robustness analyses, we also look at cohorts-based on region and socio-economic class instead of income rank.
We arrive at the following baseline estimation model:
it = B" In VIH + B,. I ct + L, Sit + do + èct (3) The model identifies family resource effects, s'for income and
g# for home value, on school access through variations in
In Y conditional on income rank, region and region-period effects. The family income effect,
Bi, is identified from differential income growth over the income distribution within regions. Likewise, the home value effect
B2 is identified from the differential growth of home values across family income ranks within regions. As in Acemoglu and Pischke (2001), families' rank in the income distribution is thought to control for their unobservable characteristics.
Because private school fees are high and credit markets are imperfect, we will also test if sor gH differ across grouped income deciles.
Like with any other method, there are some caveats. First, the fixed effects estimator can be imprecise without enough

P.s. isn't it interesting that the people who think their children will be so damaged and traumatised by having to change school aren't remotely concerned about any upheaval from moving to a new country?

😂