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.

That's taking a gamble on house prices continuing to rise (I write as someone who sold our last house in London at a loss in the 1990s recession - probably is not always a one way bet).

My parents sacrifices to pay private school education for me 3 - 18 and university when only 15% of people went (I my parents made up my very minimum £50 a year grant at university to the full one of £900 a year and there were no university fees) mean as I have always worked full time even with babies am able to fund the children at private schools and help them buy a property. however my abilitry to do that is because I didn't say go into music (I am pretty good at singing, perfect pitch, 4 grade 8s, been paid to sing etc etc and in that my earnings would have been much lower but I instead wanted to provide for my children so picked a high paid career instead), I deliberately moved hundreds of miles away from family no matter how hard that has been with small children later, because work was here (not a sacrifice all mumsnetters would make).

I agree that charging VAT may have an impact on the numbers going to private schools in the future but it will make economical sense for any current government to introduce VAT in the short term (i.e. 5 to 10 years) which is all they really care about.

I just don't believe that a huge number of those currently at private schools will be withdrawn. The majority of families will be able to afford the VAT as the majority don't go without holidays/cars at the moment so even if they don't have a spare £2,000 per child they will be able to cut back on spending.

It's just a personal choice. I wanted to show that there are normal people doing normal things to pay for this service.

I'm not rich. I'm not wealthy. Everything is comparative, I get that. We are a frugal household. I know it's hard to believe but I don't see any of it as sacrifice. It's just the decision we made.

"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."

Well it certainly counts as gaining an advantage. Did anyone said it didn't? My ds is absurdly privileged compared to many of his classmates. However it is a privilege that is at least nominally available to anyone. Unlike private education, which confers privilege on the already hugely privileged and which is available to a tiny minority. Even if they give up smoking and cancel their Sky subscription.

£4k per child at many London schools Rooster. If you have three at the same time (not that unusual) then you're up to an extra £12k a year which might be harder to find.

But I agree with you - I think dparents will do a lot to avoid removing their dcs from schools where they are happy - so dgps, remortgaging, cutting pension contributions etc. The effect on uptake of state places would be gradual as new parents of 5 yr olds and 11 yr olds at the margin decide to go with state.
Yes I agree Janet, risk on property prices and I think I read yesterday that London prices have started to fall/stagnate.

Though of course if mortgage interest rates start to rise in the next couple of years then the additional amounts on school fees may become genuinely unaffordable for more dparents.....

1% drop in property prices in London which is good news for many young families even home owners as plenty of 2 bed home owners want to move to 3 bed as they have more children and get pay rises so a drop benefits them - they are moving up not moving down in terms of values.

Sorry op but you are extrapolating from your experience but the data doesn't support your assertion.

Private school pupil numbers are rising as are fees (fast).
There is obviously significant elasticity in the market, mostly driven by foreigners.

It makes perfect sense to get some benefit for UK taxpayers of this important service industry. Charging VAT as you would for any normal service sounds like a good start.

What is likely to happen is schools will swallow a chunk of the increase and pass a chunk on. So they delay the new swimming pool / Swiss ski chalet / State of the art IT facility upgrade by a year or so.
And state schools can use the money to afford text books and teachers.

I actually do not object to private school paying VAT, they will just have to adjust their product and people will decide whether it's still worth their money.

However, I am curious about how academic JC and the shadow cabinet are, and when they say they value education they seems to only care about using it as a social releveling tool. There is nothing to show that they have a desire for excellence in the state comprehensive system. Their policy is all about making Peter pay Paul so that their narrow idea of fairness is achieved.

So free school meals and free university education us going to bring us a world class state education system fit for global competition?

Bertrand - please don't draw your own personal line around what is "acceptable privilege" and *unacceptable privilege" and then preach your own beliefs to others.

It would be interesting to see a regional breakdown of those figures thinkaboutit. My impression is that outside London (I know! again!) some private schools are closing due to falling rolls. Mind you they may also be the areas with surplus state school places.

I would tend to think you're right that overall demand will be fairly price inelastic in London - in fact I think there is currently a shortage of private school day places, so the schools may well still be able to fill their places.

the free university tuition sticker cost is £11.2 bn - imagine what that money could do if it was put into primary and secondary schools...now that's what I would've done if I was JC for a day...

*£4k per child at many London schools Rooster. If you have three at the same time (not that unusual) then you're up to an extra £12k a year which might be harder to find.8

It may be harder to find £12 but considering that most of us couldn't afford to pay £48k in the first place people aren't likely to feel much sympathy with the idea they may need to remortgage or reduce their pension. Anyone with a spare £48k (whether or not they live frugally) is hardly on the poverty line and I have no doubt the majority will be able to pay the extra rather than withdrawing their children.
Not only will the effect on state schools be gradual but the extra income from VAT is likely to outweigh the increase in cost to state education for many years.

The proposal of free university is interesting as it's only fees going to be scrapped.

There aren't proposals ( I'm aware of) to deal with living costs while at university. And it is this aspect that is the real killer for many students.

Private schools can always increase their profits to absorb the VAT by increasing class sizes, like most state schools are currently having to do with the budget cuts.

Increasing class sizes is often impossible - walls are not easy to reconfigure.

£60k rooster not £48k! Yes I agree it's an amazing sum to find per year. Not talking about sympathy, just interested in what the effect on state schools may be - which I agree with you will probably not be very great.

I think lab has also said it will reintroduce maintenance grants getahaircutcurl - though presumably still means tested. If the threshold were the same £80k, that would extend to a lot of students - but no indication that it will be.

I'd definitely rather see money spent on improving schools than free university fees - I came from a very poor background, was offered a place at Oxford, Durham, couple of others and my local uni. I ended up having to withdraw from Oxford - not because of fees but because the living costs were prohibitively expensive and even with loans/grants there was no way I could afford to actually live.

Fees to be repaid later wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest tbh and I think living costs and lack of support are probably more of a barrier to poorer kids than fees.

I worked full time while I did my degree locally, but I wouldn't have been able to do that at Oxford (it was banned by college rules, for a start!)

Agatha out of interest what is it about your children that makes you feel they couldn't function well in an environment where the majority of other well supported children do well and are happy? Particularly when they have parents with, what, 20K a year to spare to spend on tutoring and 'value adding' activities?

Are you scared about the idea of your children coming into contact with disadvantaged children?

"Increasing class sizes is often impossible - walls are not easy to reconfigure."

No kidding.

State schools are managing.

Class sizes have increased considerably over the past few years and are set to increase further.

According to what I've read teacher: pupil ratios are 1:9 in the private sector, and 1:22 in the state sector.

I got the minimum grant when I went to university 30 years ago - full grant was £900 and minimum £50. I was just telling my 18 year olds that last night. So probably we are about 10x those figures for inflation etc. Today £900 rent/food is now more like £9000. I was very lucky my parents chose to make the sum up to the ful grant. Many parents did not and the teenager could not force the parent to and had no loans or grants if the parent did not. the very poor of the 15% of us who went to university could get a full grant.

Neo, I agree on different advantages. if Bert. eg works part time and has al ot of time with the children or in back in time for bed time stories rather than doing an all nighter in the law office (or the night shift as a cleaner) then that is as much a privileged advantage to the child of paying for a school place or buying a house in a leafy Surrey suburb which has posh comps. only due to house prices.

"Increasing class sizes is often impossible-walls are not easy to reconfigure".

Doesn't stop the money grabbing private schools around here from squeezing more kids and more pounds into the existing space. Parents are so fearful of the (good) state school alternative that they are quite happy with this .

head

Equally children benefit from having a mc background and a mum prepared to take them to after school stuff

No its not equal at all

Agree that if you can teach them it can make a difference

And as a general point not aimed at you head

One other thing i would say is that in my albeit limited experience private school children do seem to be more confident and erudite

And yes i am well aware that there are exceptions to the rule

They could only increase class sizes if there are enough children to do this.
If fewer can afford to pay fees then there won't be as many children.

There are families that struggle already to pay fees, there are others who don't.
The whole 7% of privately educated children won't all be leaving and I can't see them filling the places of poor schools.
Nobody in their right mind would send their dc to a crap school whether private or state.