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.

Yes I agree that it will reduce demand - that's partly the aim I suspect. Relatively few parents will choose schools that take them right to the edge of their family budget - they'll want to leave room for emergencies and fee rises, and ideally some holidays and other luxuries, which means that a 20% increase won't drive out families who are already in the system but it will deter new ones from starting. Actually I think that a smaller private sector serving the super-wealthy isn't as much of a problem as a medium sized private sector and a general assumption that GPs and MPs and lawyers' children will naturally go private. It's a critical mass problem.

I disagree. It does no one any good to hive off the super wealthy, who have so much power over the lives of the population at large, into exclusive clubs where they never touch upon a less gilded existence.

"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?"

I was touching on that. If they aren't charities any more or can hive off the fee paying part to profit making companies and the profits go to the charitable foundation which is what you would expect (just like all our main charities have trading arms, Oxfam etc) then they can indeed claim back VAT that they spend but it is not huge - just on paper, equipment and a few complex points on VAT on buildings.

Secondly they don't have to do all the stuff the 2006 charity law or whenever it was forced them to do - like funding state schools or offering bursaries for the poor. So all these changes would mean the fees would NOT got up by 20% and in some areas like the North where parents do not have much money and fees are £10k a year per child I bet they would just not increase fees other than in line with teacher pay rises.

"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."

I don't want you to send your child to your local primary school.

I do want you to stop using the word "essential" about sending your children to private school.
I also want you to stop suggesting that your children would be at risk of abuse if they ever "set foot in a state education building"

I'd go further and say young people who have had their university place bought through private school fees should continue to pay a higher rate of university fee and this should be used to subsidise fees for state educated children.
It is a choice and not an essential to send your children privately. I cannot see why the poor should subsidise the wealthy by allowing tax breaks, bursaries and trusts for fees. I know from first hand experience that bursaries and scholarships are not 'pure' and can be used to advantage of quite wealthy parents.

What I find distasteful. Is the moral judgement towards people who use private schools.

Why is teaching your own child considered ok, (because you have time) but using your time to earn to pay for the teaching you would otherwise do is considered morally bad.

I agree it's wittery that the vat collected on fees would have only been spent on vat on other things representing a nil net benefit to the state. But taking away choice of what you spend your money on. And hitting someone because you don't like their choices.

And nobody wants private schools to set up academies. They're not very good at it. They don't pay money to do so, they take money from state system. The idea that independent school teachers are better is just plain ludicrous. Many are unqualified and have failed in state schools. There will, of course, be plenty of good teachers in both.

crumb
Many children have a mixed education.
Why would you penilise my child - her state school didn't want her to do the choices she wanted. (Too hard apparently) They let others!
I was then effectively penislised because I work shifts....and couldn't drive her to the next secondary school.
People use other provision for a variety of different reasons.

"What I find distasteful. Is the moral judgement towards people who use private schools."

I find private education morally repugnant. I find anything that entrenches privilege morally repugnant.

However, I completely understand why people choose private education, and I will not judge them unless they suggest that a)anyone could pay school fees if only they worked harder/spent less on Sky TV and fags b) that they make sacrifices to send their children to private school c) that they had "no choice" but to send their child to private school. d) make ignorant judgements about state schools. (I also judge people who make ignorant judgements about private schools, by the way!)

I find the castigation of what an abuse survivor finds essential to the wellbeing of her family morally repugnant.

Agatha and use whatever terms you wish.

So what would you have us do?
Not do the A levels she wanted?
Me give up work to drive her to the next nearest comp?
The school refused to let her sit the exam if I taught her.
Bit of a hobsons choice there.

That's why if feel we should facilitate alternatives.

Bertrand - I hope you never talk to your D.C. - you would be entrenching privilege if you did 😉

cormarant the movement of trad middle class families from private to state schools has been happening for quite some time.

And yet, we have seen during this time, an unprecedented assault on funding. And it has gone almost unchallenged.

How is pushing more traditional middle class families in the same direction going to help?

And the people with the real money and power will shake off an increase of 20% with a grumble and still send their DC to the top public schools.

"Our children learn humility, grace and compassion for other humans minifingerz"

From a safe distance in case they catch 'poor and rough' off them

"I agree [with] wittery that the vat collected on fees would have only been spent on vat on other things representing a nil net benefit to the state."
Mathematically I don't think that's right is it? Say the VAT on fees is £4000 a year. That family will now pay the whole of the £4k in VAT. Before they would have spent the £4k on goods and services - about £3.34 on goods and services and £0.66k in VAT (can't be bothered to work out exact figure.) So there is a gain to HMRC of £3.34k extra VAT.

Obviously there is a loss of that £3.34k to the wider economy. (Except that it gets spent again by govt, so maybe not.) Unless it was previously just being saved, of course - though even then it went into lending to someone else.
I think once your dc are in a school and happy there, dparents will do a lot to keep them there, so the exodus of existing pupils from private schools to state might not be so very great - only those who really couldn't avoid it. But it may affect how many initially take up private education, at primary and secondary level, so you would expect to see an increase in demand for state education.

Certainly there are areas which already have shortage of school places - see various parts of London. And those may also be the parts with the highest proportion of privately educated dc, so the effect might be quite significant.

"mean that my children will never set foot in a state educational building whilst they are children."

Is that because you actually think your children are more at risk of abuse in the state sector than in the private sector?

Or are you paying what will eventually amount to over 100K on school fees so you personally don't have to come into contact with a state school as you find the idea of non-fee paying schools triggering? And you've made decisions about your children's education based on this?

Ironically, I went to a private school myself, where there was sexual and emotional abuse of children, which luckily for me I wasn't on the receiving end of (it was a boarding school so the worst thing that I experienced was prolonged neglect).

Sadly, child abuse has happened in all educational settings. :-(

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.

Sorry but this is not a rational argument. I don't have any figures but experience suggests that many public/boarding schools have had problems with abuse/grooming etc - it's certainly no less prevalent in public schools than in state schools. Moreover, no school, state or private, can absolutely guarantee to avoid the possibility.

As for those who worry about the impact on state schools should large numbers be forced to decamp: There will only be a temporary shortfall. Any vacant public school places will be rapidly filled by children from the foreign super-rich, who will happily pay the extra vat. Trickle down economics will ensure that this money is spent on building better state schools. It's a win-win for everyone.
Or does "we're all in this together" thing only count for the poor?

Private education is a nice to have (excluding any special school) not a have to have

I dont know whether VAT should be charged...I honestly dont care if it isnt

But some of the arguments for why it is vital I honestly dont get

Its not vital, but in some cases people will do whatever they can to facilitate it

It would be better if we had a better state system, but its got its problems and instead of sorting them the torys seem like they are jumping up and down on the remains

117, you are right it is not simple (on VAT). I have acted for universities who have similari ssues - they might well spend a lot on VAT on things they buy but they cannot then claim it back as they don't charge VAT on their serviecs. So if private schools become profit making companies they would under the new regime be able to claim back their VAT but they would have nothing like enough VAT to set against what they charge like my business. I pay out a bit of VAT on things like paper but I charge a lot more on all my fees so I always have a large VAT sum when the netting off is done to pay to HMRC. However if you add in the other advantages to the private schools of no longer being restricted by all the complications and costs of being a charity then you get the cost to parents and the school down even more. I still think most fees would go up a bit but it would not be 20%,.

I dn't agree with Crumbs that privtae schools buy places at universities and how you can say that works whilst also saying teachers are not better in private schools I cannot understand. If private school teachers are worse or the same then surely you don't buy the private school results. Plenty of private schools take children who are not very bright for a start. Whilst those of us who pay probably think there are some areas including perhaps small class sizes (not a big thing for me) or nicer sport or we want single sex secondary education (I do) I don't think i feel I buy university places. I wish it were so easy. 100% of the chi;dren who applied to Oxbridge from my sons' school this year have not got a place at Oxbridge. That is hardly buying university places!

My child is in a specialist school which caters for SPD because his local primary school could not provide the support for him. If there was VAT on fees I could not afford to send him to the tiny private specialist school he is at (the fees are huge because of specialist teacher ratios). Please do not assume that everyone sends their child to private school for the same reason....

janet

I dont know about the buying places bit

But to me the private schools benefit a child due to smaller class sizes, behavior management, music, sports and extra curricular activities

Not the teaching per se

Rufus, yes althoughn in London is it complicated. My sons have friends who left their prep school for state grammars at 11+. Other boys have gone to Inner London comps whith good exam results at 16+ etc. There is a lot iof competition between the various sectors here whereas if you go to the NE where I am from there will be a few private schools with £10k a year fees only and a few state schools some of which are not too good and no grammar schools since about 1970!!!

I have never been much of a fan of small classes as you get less intellectual debate if the class is too small . if you have all class teaching and everyone is quite bright you can have quite large but successful classes. Anyway it is hard to generalise about private schools as so many parents differ of the tiny 8% of us who pay fees - some are very rich, some are struggling with special needs children as above, some are in the middle.

Labour will not be getting in . Private schools will not have VAT levied on their fees.

However do all get out there and vote in June.

Equally children benefit from having a mc background and a mum prepared to take them to after school stuff. Or in my case can teach them easily too.
But clearly that doesn't count as gaining an advantage through dubious means.

Janet - you should have a look at some of the research on peer influence, and how it impacts on attainment.

The long and short of it is that clustering bright and well supported children together to educate will drive up standards for that group, while having the opposite effect when less able/less well supported children are isolated for the purposes of education.

Elitism and socially segregated schools damage the prospects of the majority of ordinary kids.

If that's the case the government should not be propping up socially segregated schooling through the tax system.

There's at least a coherent argument that now property prices are such a high multiple of earnings, the £130-150k (higher?) cost of 3-18 private education would get a better return if given to your dc as a deposit on a house once they're earning - or used to invest in property yourself to pass on. I don't know whether anyone's investigated what the lifetime earnings premium on private education is - but it is of course never guaranteed.

(Nor are property prices of course.)
Anyway it would be interesting if the net effect was to release yet more money into the property market.