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.

If 7% of children are apparently privately educated (which is the figure I keep hearing) then if all of them left suddenly over night the state sector would only need find 7% more room/funding and lots of people would still send their child to private school anyway it will just cost them more.
I don't know the ins and outs or whether it is a good policy or not, but I don't think fearing a huge influx of half the private school student would matter. My school expanded by 30% just through population growth.

I wonder what the impact would be on house prices the school system if we had no grammar schools, no private schools and ALL children had to attend their local school.

I wonder if there will be a 7% swing to the Conservative Party because the private school parents will be panicked into voting Tory? If so, well done Jeremy (again).

Private schools would be able to reclaim vat on purchases which they currently can't do, so fees would not need to rise by 20%.

"As an aside, as a pp said about the free school meals for middle class/wealthy families. I completely agree that this should be scrapped - I wonder how much this would save?"
Probably not very much. The system for providing school lunches is already in place, and it would mean no time or effort involved in deciding who gets lunch and who doesn't. And it would also mean that everybody got a decent lunch.

I do think that private ed should be VATable based on other things which fall into this tax category, but anyone who thinks that this will democratise education is misled. Do they think that the minoritywho withdraw their children are going to send them to rubbish comps to improve standards? Of course they won't. They will sharp-elbow their way into strong comps, faith schools and grammars. As I (and most others I suppose) would in their place. If Corbyn wants private schools to disappear and education to be standard for all, he needs to say that he'll outlaw them (along with selection, faith, travelling out of catchment etc) not just fiddle about with VAT.

I'm not in favour of universal free school meals. I used to be, because when I was at school in pre-internet times, it was obvious who was receiving them and there was teasing. However, with online Parentpay etc the stigma has gone because it's unclear who qualifies. So, just give fsm to genuinely needy kids and use the VAT revenues to improve science labs or whatever.

I was thinking what bertrand said

Why isnt private school a luxury?

Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where parents didn't have to pay £10,000 a year to privately educate their DC because the local school offered a good education.

Social care and childcare fees have VAT applied to them. But private school fees don't. It's madness - surely the first two are necessities, and the last one is a luxury?

The arguments here seem to fall into three camps:

1. I want my child to go to private school but don't want to pay any more.
2. People who don't go private are jealous of those that do.
3. State schools need more funding for more pupils.

Wrt to 1), that's not the state's problem I'm afraid. The state invests our taxes in our state school system. The market place of the system you use when you opt out of that is not controlled by the state. Private school fees have risen exponentially in my lifetime. The cost has risen because people are willing to pay more, not because the money is being spent more efficiently or more effectively. Perhaps schools might like to respond to the vat rise by lowering their fees? But then why should they - as long as there are more people willing to pay higher fees.

1. People who send their kids to private school are obviously going to think it's the best option. But don't assume that you know how the rest of us think. I went to private school. I have made the positive choice to send my kids to state schools. I would not want them to go private because I don't believe the private system offers a better education; anything but. (Clearly this depends on the schools and the children involved.)

1. Which it could receive, if private school fees were taxed and/ or higher earners were taxed more - perhaps equivalent to the amount they spend on fees?!

(Nb of course it's massively silly to promise free school meals out of this revenue.)

Other countries, including France, Germany and the U.S., have good state schools. There is no reason why we can't overturn our historical system and replace it with something fairer, too. Speaking as an alumnus of some of this country's oldest public schools, it's my opinion that the private school system is not a matter of education but of class. When people defend it they are defending a system of structural inequality and a country defined and ruled by a small social (financial) elite.

"Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where parents didn't have to pay £10,000 a year to privately educate their DC "
I do. I live in England. Where do you live?

I have posted a couple of time with this question, but no-one ever answers :(
I sent my eldest DS to a private school. We went without holidays and other luxuries to pay for the fees.
Our neighbour could have easily afforded to do the same, but chose to spend his cash on two holidays a year, nice cars and a full kitchen refit every other year
Why should I be penalised for the way I chose to spend my cash, especially as my choice had the side-effect of saving the state money?
Most private schools are full of ordinary families who go without to send their child to what they believe to be a good school.
It's about time we got rid of the stubborn belief that all private schools are like Eton and full of rich kids. It's just not the case.
One last question - for all of the people rubbing their hands with glee at the idea of getting back at The Rich - can you honestly say that you would not send your kids to the best school you could, if money was no object?
If you can honestly say no, then you have the right to welcome this pledge. If not - being absolutely honest - then you are a jealous hypocrite.

Private ed isn't a luxury if the only alternative (for us certainly) is a failing school (dreadful Ofsted, social problems, poor academic etc). And my DC are definitely not "dim", nor are we as a family "rich" in any sense of the word. We prioritise education over holidays, cars, any home improvements, as do many, many of our friends. If we had VAT imposed on our school fees we couldn't afford them any more.

I do. I live in England. Where do you live

Maybe I should have added

Feel the need to spend £10,000 on private schools.

cathf
did your neighbour pay VAT on the things he chose to spend his money on?

cathf perhaps your neighbours didn't think the private school would suit their child? Perhaps they invested time and energy and resources into advocating for and improving the local school instead? And what about those people on lower incomes than you - perhaps working in low income careers like teaching - who already go without holidays and luxuries just so they can get by? Are they morally inferior to you, too, because they don't have as much money?

cathf - once again, you seem to find it absolutely inconceivable that anyone who has a reasonable income could make choices that were motivated by something other than personal benefit.

Beaten to my question by just

But would you consider private school a luxury cath ? And if not why not

can you honestly say that you would not send your kids to the best school you could, if money was no object?

Absolutely i would, but If the fees included VAT i would have to pay it

Thank you for your comment silly

VAT is not a tax on luxuries.

There seems to be some sort of meme embeded in people's brains that says it is, but Wikipedia seems to confirm it is not and never has been a tax on luxuries. I think it's supposed to be a tax on more or less all consumption, although there are some random exemptions.

On those figures the Treasury would still be quids in even if a quarter of private school pupils removed their children and sent them to state schools. And bear in mind that a lot of boarding children paying the very highest fees are from overseas anyway.

On Rita's point, the proportion of the population who are parents of school age children who use private schools and who don't already vote conservative is a pretty small percentage. It's way less than 7%

one family (us) taking our kids out of the private school system would cost the state £12k as opposed to the £5k we would have paid in VAT. so per family there is a loss, as opposed to how many of the 7% who chose private schools did the same.

if I have to pay tax for my 14 year old sanitary towels why the heck wouldn't you pay it for your choice to privately educate?

Seriously - you have a choice - you choose private - VAT would be added - as it should be - if it makes it un affordable your child will be doomed to be educated with all our pleb kids!

Per family it's a loss, but if only one in three families do that - which seems a very high estimate to me - then the Treasury comes out ahead.

It just taps into the hatred that people in this country have for those who can afford what they cannot. Most of Labour's policies are about taxing those bastards who work hard but earn more than you.