AIBU that VAT on school fees makes no economical sense?

[fuckwitery]

Trying to research what it costs the state to put a child through school each year. Figures I've found show between £6 - £8k. We pay £13k per DC per year. That's prep, so will be more for senior school. So at the mo introducing VAT on these fees would add £2,600 to the state coffers. £4k for senior school.

We, and lots of others who just about manage to pay for private schooling, will be forced to take their children out. Therefore it's a NET loss for the state?

Or am I missing something.

So much crap about so called sacrifice. If you send your children to private school it means that somehow you have 10 grand or whatever the fees are SPARE MONEY EVERY YEAR. Per child. Some people seem to be in total denial of this basic fact. Essential my arse.

I don't think any parent on this thread who pays fees is asking for sympathy. It's just basic maths. You reach a point as household where you cannot magic up any more cash. That's all.

There is no economic sense to this plan. There will be 2 categories of parent - the small minority who can take the hit easily. They won't really notice another 2,4,5K a year.

Then there will be the majority who will
-remortgage (destabilising the economy further). Or

• pull their children out (increasing pressure on state schools.

These schools are huge businesses. My DC school employs hundreds. Mostly support staff - (TA, handymen, part time peripatetic staff) not well paid teachers. All those people will lose their jobs.

I can't be the only woman on MN who lives in an area with no State Primary school places left. Can I?!

One of my sisters is a state primary head and she genuinely feels the free school lunches is too small a variable to help children. Her biggest challenge at work isn't food (they have been running a free breakfast club for years). It's children up all night. Apparently the police round for fights and kids still up at 1am are not uncommon problems in her very rural, very deprived primary in the north of England.

Batshit it is def not a sacrifice for me and DH. We have made a clear choice and cut our cloth accordingly.
Get rid of the car? Fine. Babysit to bring in a bit extra? No problem. Work extra shifts? Of course I will!

It is essential to me as the mortgage. This is not the place but the things that happened to me in my state school (abuse, grooming, north of England) mean that my children will never set foot in a state educational building whilst they are children.

It is not a sacrifice. It is not spare money. It is an essential spend.

What happens then Agatha to those in your area that despite sacrifice can't quite manage private school fees when there are 'no state school places'??

Some women would otherwise have worked part time or not worked (like a whole load of mumsnetters) but work full time and 100% of their net earnings go on fees. So yes it is as much a luxury to pay fees as it is to be a part time worker or stay at home mother of school age children. However it is not some millionaire lifestyle choice. The £10k of after tax earnings is obviously something a single parent with no child support payments would find hard to pay but in a dual earner couple used to the mother not working whilst children are under 5 that she goes back to work entirely to pay school fees does not necessarily mean the family have millionaire style earnings.

But Labour are not likely to get in particularly if all mumsnetters vote Tory (do vote in June) so I don't think people need to worry too much.

Of course it is spare money. I despair. You have spare money to spend on private school when your mortgage and other basic costs have been paid, I mean essential in the generally accepted sense rather than the private school deluded bubble world sense.

"This is not the place but the things that happened to me in my state school (abuse, grooming, north of England) mean that my children will never set foot in a state educational building whilst they are children."

And if those things had happened to you -as they have to many children-in a private school, would you be saying "my children will never set foot in a private educational building while they are children?"

I am sorry -more than sorry- that those things happened to you. But the rest of your post is just illogical. To say the least.

There is no economic sense to this plan. There will be 2 categories of parent - the small minority who can take the hit easily. They won't really notice another 2,4,5K a year.

I don't believe that the great majority of those with children at private school can only afford the exact amount they are currently paying and only after sacrificing holidays, car etc. Those I know certainly manage holidays and cars. The majority will be able to take the hit without taking their children out. Only a minority will withdraw those currently at private schools so economically it does make sense for the current government.

Bertrand. Of course I would!!! I can't move past what happened. I must protect my children. It may be illogical but it's my reality - & I'm confident and happy with my choices.

Batshit I have no idea what people will do when there are no primary places. Seriously - no clue. So how does the VAT & putting more pressure on state schools help anyone? What's the point in a free lunch if there are 40 kids on the waiting list to enter compulsory education at the school?

Private education really gets people's back up. I don't know why. It's so personal.

The concept of "spare money" is an odd one. Couples make all sorts of trade offs to create the lifestyle they want for their family. Choosing to use time to generate more income versus choosing to use time to care for DC is one of them.

I don't think that the majority of private school pupils are holidaying on Sun £5 deals and being driven around in ten year old Nissans. Some, yes, but a small minority. Most of those parents will have three grand spare in their budget they can cut if they absolutely had to.

Roomster it's just anecdotes- not data, happy to admit that. I only know 170 ish families (we are a small prep attached to a huge high) & it's just the way it is for our friends.

bertrand

Some boarding school children would say the same

So you are obviously right...it must also hapoen in private schools

agatha

"I can't be the only woman on MN who lives in an area with no State Primary school places left. Can I?!"

No, you're not, if you mean there aren't enough places to go round and the LEA has to use the Fair Access Protocol to force once of more schools to go over numbers, or create a bulge class.

The scale of the problem of (possible) leavers seeking state school places depends on where you live, and which year groups are affected.

It's all very well to say it's only 7% (nationally, all age groups) but that doesn't reflect certain areas where the use of private schools including preps is much higher. And pupils may well be seeking places in any year group, some of which are already stuffed to the gunnels (the predictions of the shortages of school places in next 3-5 years remain alarmingly high, without adding this factor at pretty much the same time.

The higher the fees at private schools, the smaller the pool of potential students. I'm not sure it is in Labour's interest to make the private school sector ever more exclusive.

"Bertrand. Of course I would!!! I can't move past what happened. I must protect my children. It may be illogical but it's my reality - & I'm confident and happy with my choices. "

But you are not protecting them simply by sending them to a school in a different sector- you would be more logical not sending them to school at all.

And anyone suggesting a child is likely to be abused in either sector is scaremongering to a ridiculous degree.

I agree thats its still 'spare' money

But my position is as janet describes

If i only had ds1 he would be at private school and i would have gone back to work to avoid the nursery fees

Dh did start earning more money so i may never have needed to work fulltime

But after 3 children and gradual payrises that wasn't going to happen

1. I could afford an extra £2k per child (although to be honest my boys leave in July and university will cost me £150k over 3 years for them so not exactly sunny cheap uplands to come......) although I wuld rather not pay it. It may be less because we can remove busary supported children and scholarship children from schools and stop having to allow outsiders in, locals to use the pools and will not have to second teachers to local comprehensives and support academies to there will be tax savings there. Also if schools do not have to be charities any more then that frees them from a lot of restrictions so it is not a one way bad deal by the way.

1. Many parents can't. There are parents in my sons' school who picked that school as the fees are a little bit less than a few other local schools which cost a few thousand more and that difference was very material to them.

1. As I said above sometimes a mother works full time just to pay fees but I agree that that trade off between free time for the mother v child's education is not quite the same as I work full time on minimum wage as does my husband and we bring in £15k each a year and that is needed for the rent and food. Of course most people cannot afford school fees given the type of properties they rent/cost of rents.

1. I drive a £1k car actually but that's from choice. If I wanted some fancy big car I could easily put that through my business and lease it on some kind of deal they do these days (but I hate debt). having a really old car outside means this house is much less likely to be burgled than neighbours with ferraris! I regard my old banger as a security precaution and I hate cars.

1. My sister pays at least 50% of her net income as school fees and her boys have never been on a plane (talking of holidays) and certainly don't have things like smart phones. So don't assume you can really generalise about private school parents - they differ hugely particularly in day schools which is where most of them are.

I agree that a relatively smaller proportion would actually pull children out of schools; I think it would be more likely to have an impact on the number starting in future years, and also at the transition points so you'd see more children going from private prep to state high schools, fewer going from state primary to private secondary, and fewer starting private at primary age.

Bertrand I'm not suggesting anything about any school. I've shared a small part of the situation I find myself in.

It may frustrate you, it may infuriate you, you may want me to send DC to the local primary (I can't, it's full) but it doesn't matter or impact on me because it will never ever happen.

Haven't read all the thread so apologise if this has already been discussed, but looking at it from a money raising point of view, if schools have to charge VAT on their fees, does this mean they will now be able to claim input VAT on their purchases? So it may result in some money being raised for the Government but not 20% of school fees. So if it does result in children being pulled from private school the cost to state schools would be higher than the actual money raised.

Agatha one if the reasons it gets my back up is that (apart from the entrenched privilege and inequality it promotes) is that people use words like 'essential' to describe it.

StatisticallyChallenged - I agree. Changes such as this are a bit like Brexit - market adjustments to changed conditions will happen over time.