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.

My son and his friends volunteered at a local state school and as far as I know the children they helped and the teachers did seem to appreciate it.
Oh I bet they just loved the rich boys coming to ogle at them

Get rid of private schools. Get rid of sneering parents feeling smug because they can afford to buy their children an advantage that the majority can not. Just turn all the buildings into state schools, job done. A lot of people on here sicken me. As long as they are OK, to hell with the rest. Tory scum.

Get rid of private schools
Not gonna happen.
For a start, lots of private schools serve utterly essential purposes in catering for SEN kids.
Those countries that ban private schools merely provide income for the private schools of other countries and start their brain drain young.

If people want o pay for private schooling its incredibly hard to stop them.
But those schools should not be given tax breaks over and above state run schools.

Its selective state schools that really get my goat.

The only sneering I experience is that from state school teachers!
And those on mumsnet.

I find it interesting that not paying vat on fees is seen as a tax break - yet there is a failure to acknowledge that these children are not being funded by their local school - so save taxpayers money - which was how this post started anyway! The inference being taxing parents out of the independent sector will cost taxpayers more, not less?

I've never voted Tory despite sending the children to prep school thank you so don't make assumptions that I'm - as it's so eloquently put 'Tory scum'

I'm not going to pretend that imo I'm giving my children an advantage - otherwise I wouldn't spend the money - I want them to have an easier life than me - and, like any parent, will do what I can to achieve that. I live in an 11+ area and see loads of state school parents with very sharp elbows. They wouldn't be impressed if a few hundred kids of wealthy parents with access to tutors etcetc who previously went independent suddenly started taking the grammar school places...

Sorry but I take exception with "lots of private schools serve utterly essential purposes in catering for SEN kids". My son has SENs and none of the private schools around here would touch him with a barge pole with the exception of one heinously over priced school that caters for his specific SEN but is frankly rubbish in comparison with the state school provision.

I'd get rid of the grammars as well. Best to have a mix in my opinion

raaaah
The schools I'm meaning are the very low profile, pretty much only take statemented kids with LEA money. (eg secure 50 weeks per year boarding schools)
Places cost up to £200,000 a year.
They are private for historic reasons but would be caught in the net if Corbyn gunned for Eton.

50bales
Grammar
religious
any sort of selective
state should not fund.

That's an interesting premise. Do you not believe in choice in the system then? I went to a comp in the north (good rep, church school) then moved south and did GCSEs in a grammar. They were chalk and cheese. I'd never have achieved as much in the comp. the aspiration wasn't there.
I understand that if we had a fully comprehensive system the argument is that parents would ensure standards were raised - but it will only happen in the wealthy areas. You'll just see increasing ghettoisation around certain catchment areas.
I don't have a panacea for equity in society, but I doubt vat on fees is the answer.

I think the problem with the more wealthy and (therefore) more powerful people in society sending their kids to private school is that it leads to a lack of interest in public education. The fact that any cuts or curriculum changes don't affect their children means they're less careful of the effects that policy changes and funding cuts make on others'. The average london school stands to loose on average £350 per pupil - and the poorer your area the higher the cut. You can actually calculate how much your local school stands to loose on this interactive thing
www.schoolcuts.org.uk/#!/
One of the saddest thing is the way that kids are penalised for their parents lack of income - private school is massively funded with parents more able to chip in when neccesary. Where I work (I'm a teacher) the kids come in with the same clothes all week and without breakfast - these cuts mean their education won't come near to that of private school pupils'. Stopping private education would mean the politicians and the wealthy would have a vested interest in the system and the standards for every child would improve. Private education has been outlawed in Finland and they're the top of the league in terms of attainment. Private schooling teaches kids early that they're better than everyone else. This is one of the reasons that our leaders have this opinion of themselves.
Just saying...

Rather than choice we need good state schools that the local kids attend

Private education has been outlawed in Finland and they're the top of the league in terms of attainment.
Not true and not comparable.
(a) Finland is a very small very homogeneous country with incredibly low levels of language and ethnic mixing in most of the country.
(b) Rich Finnish families send their kids to school abroad - the UK and US mostly. So the problem has just been exported, not removed.
and most importantly
(c) The Finland system is fab at bringing everybody up to an expected level, but notoriously bad at helping those who want to work well beyond the norm.

There are all sorts of private schools, it wouldn't be brilliant to close them all at all.
Why are so many people bothered about the choices other people make in their lives.
I can't remember parents being so het up about it when I was growing up in the 70's. There were those that had, those that hadn't and those in the middle.

I'm happy to pay tax, indeed I'm happy to pay more tax on our family income if we need it to rescue or chronically underfunded NHS and education system.

However, I would not be massively impressed if we were taxed on the school fees. The sad fact is that might withdraw our children, and as we are lucky enough to live near the a good state secondary we would apply to there. We would therefore be taking the place away from someone else, someone who may not have the choice to go private, and whose kids are then shipped to the next town to the terrible school.

Do you not think that the parents with the financial muscle to pay for school fees would not just use that muscle to make catchments even smaller for good state schools?

victoria

What makes you so sure that your children wouldnt be shipped to the terrible school?

gilly
I can't remember parents being so het up about it when I was growing up in the 70's.
I can.
That is why I was sent to private schools.
I still remember the names of the state schools my parents were avoiding.
One of them now regularly pops up on MN threads as a "really good choice"

Ugly - your close minded venomous ranting hardly serves the debate well.

Talkin

I don't me to be rude but is it a mc problem then.
Both as a child and throughout my adult life I can honestly say I've rarely heard anyone complain about the variety of choice in education.
I've heard parents discussing certain pros and cons to local schools, specific instances etc, but have never heard grammar or private or even H.ed come into any debate.
As kids we didn't know there were different schools.

A lot of people on here sicken me. As long as they are OK, to hell with the rest. Tory scum.

@uglyflowers how about you grow up and stop acting like a child throwing stupid insults about

Secondly you must have a crystal ball to know how people vote.

Could she use your crystal ball Piglet? You seem to think yours is accurate enough

@janetbrown2015, when you say university is going to cost you 150 k, I must presume you mean you will pay for your children's uni tuition fees and living costs. Many students have to finance uni through mostly loans, part time work and a bit of parental help, some no parental help.

threegirls
My DDs school has quite a cohort of mc parents. No one bothers with the school. I don't even think there is a pta.
We sort our children out ourselves beyond school. It's rather a fallacy that mc parents swoop in and give resources and help - they just don't.

It's a school where there is little interest in achievement beyond a c, much up to it, but little effort beyond it.

It's also a school for which it would be difficult for pupils to make extra effort to get there (rural) and not easy to escape going there for the same reason.
IT seems that it doesn't seem to feel the need to make its self attractive...

*The schools I'm meaning are the very low profile, pretty much only take statemented kids with LEA money. (eg secure 50 weeks per year boarding schools)
Places cost up to £200,000 a year.
They are private for historic reasons but would be caught in the net if Corbyn gunned for Eton. *

How would they be affected by changes to VAT if LAs are paying the fees (if that is what you mean by Corbyn gunning for Eton)?

raaaah

My son has SPD and is at a private school which only has SEN children. His primary school failed him and I am working day and night to fund very expensive fees. I would not be able to afford it if there was VAT on his fees.