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.

i know it's unpalatable to say it, and I've got no skin in this game, my dc will never go to eton, westminster, harrow, any of the merchant schools etc - but some private schools have a long history, I do agree with Karlos that i don't want the only choice to be a state provided homogeneous comprehensive school experience for every child in Britain, it'll reduce diversity, and where will British people be if we can't make assumptions about people based on what type of schooling they had?

"I was clearly joking about taxing further education!"

I wasn't though. It's currently defined for the purposes of tax in exactly the same way as all other fee-paid education (except some crammers).

Not sure about pre-schools though, but I guess any setting that accepts the early years grant (the 'free' hours) would probably fall under the same definition. As things stand at present that it. It could all change after the Great Repeal Bill.

The only thing I would try and change about Private schools, is to make them participate in the local school networks. Where I live they all refuse to compete in sports against state schools. Football, rugby, hockey etc. Also in teachers conferences/training sessions etc to try and make local schools better. That would help change the perception that they are afraid to mix with the great unwashed masses.

i don't want the only choice to be a state provided homogeneous comprehensive school experience for every child in Britain

That's not the case now. Schools in the state system vary massively as it is.

where will British people be if we can't make assumptions about people based on what type of schooling they had? I think this argument clinches it

Actually, I think that's a good point about what a state monopoly on school education would mean. Because I don't think there is that much variety in schools - it's been NCed and OFSTEDed out of them. And international comparators are routinely decried. So if there was just one approved state-controlled system, their would be no Summerhill (to choose an obvious outlier that challenges educational doctrine), there would be no different vision that led to differing approaches to and results in exams.

Is it about plurality in the school system, or about accessing what's thought of as 'better'? Because two things have happened since 1997 - the end of assisted places and the rocketing of school fee inflation (started with the NI hikes around the same time, continued relentlessly) meaning that in the space of a decade or so, something that was expensive but potentially do-able became totally and utterly out of reach.

State funded education is a right. Private education is a luxury. How can it be any other way.

When considering plurality I do tend to approach that from the angle if special needs and in particular asd education, because that is the particular issue I have had to grapple with and in large part the driver of my choice of private schooling for my kids. There is no question at all that the only innovation and progress in asd education comes from non state actors in this country, with the exception of some university research. Without that - without wealthy parents also refusing to accept the shite the state offers, if it offers anything - there would be no dynamism and progress in this field. The state stranglehold does mean, however, that what we have learnt cannot at present be spread as widely as it should.
We should never ever permit the state to have a monopoly on education. It leads to stagnation in my view.

It's the same as increasing insurance tax (and therefore the benefit in kind) on private medical cover. Anything that takes so much pressure off the state should be tax deductible not suffer huge amounts of tax

Max and ruby Private Eduardo private health insurance don't actually benefit the state system. Quite the converse.

User1635974 do we really want doctors and surgeons who have only achieved due to being propped up by their parents wealth? It was interesting watching all the public school kids flop at university due to having to plan on an equal field.

This was about the economics
Not whether the state system does or doesn't live up to parents wishes and expectations.
We are not saying the state should have a monopoly
We are saying that public school fees should have vat added as they're a luxury

"User1635974 do we really want doctors and surgeons who have only achieved due to being propped up by their parents wealth? It was interesting watching all the public school kids flop at university due to having to plan on an equal field."

That really is a very silly post. There are enough sound srguments against private education without making stuff up.

Yeah agree with crumbs

Thats not how private health insurance works unfortunately

if education is a good in itself, it cannot cease to be so purely because it is provided by someone who charges for it. It does not become a luxury because a parent pays directly in cash rather than indirectly through taxes. And from a practical perspective making it more costly limits access, and reduces the benefits of diversity of provisions.
For all these reasons it's nonsense to say vat should be applied because it's a luxury - even if vat were a luxury tax, which it isn't.

Ok luxury was a bad term.
Something that is exclusively for only a section of society that is considerably more wealthy than the rest, which has no access to said education
The disparity between our two education systems is shocking
I wish the public school system were entirely filled with progressive people wishing to better the overall education system for all.
It's not.
You pay vat on a lot of food. And many other non luxury items
So why is an elitist education system free from it
And anyone who thinks it's not elitist is living in cloud cuckoo land

also, is it particularly more morally beautiful if I use my wealth to buy or rent a place in the catchment of a selective grammar school and pay for tutors to ensure my kids get in, than to pay private school fees?

I don't think so - the idea that absent private schools, state schools are all equal is rubbish. Why can't we provide more funding for state schools through progressive income tax and let parents make the best choices they're able to without penalizing one group?

As I said. Tax free up to the the amount the government spend on a child in a state school, then VAT on the rest.

"also, is it particularly more morally beautiful if I use my wealth to buy or rent a place in the catchment of a selective grammar school and pay for tutors to ensure my kids get in, than to pay private school fees"

I think you'll find people who are opposed to private education are also opposed to selective state education too.

Bertrand
I think that's a great idea

The disparity between our two education systems is shocking

You wouldn't think so when you read the state v. private threads on here when posters can't decide what's best and the number of people you get saying 'our state school is better than the private school down the road because of x,y,z'.

Ironically the disparity is not greatest in terms of individual academic standards but I find in the extra curricular activities, pastoral care and approach to learning.

BettaandRussell no I don't think that sending your children to private school is a gift to the public by bestowing them with doctors and nurses - that is silly. And yes I did see a number of private school students drop out of university because they didn't have the natural intelligence to be there. I studied in a very male / private school dominated area and you have no right to tell me I am making things up.

Absolutely peppa

unfortunately it's not possible to tax people for using selective education, is it?

I think you'll find people who are opposed to private education are also opposed to selective state education too.

This exactly