to ask if you can afford a 'private' school in the UK but have chosen to send your child/children to a state school why?

[Foreverexhausted]

My three year old DD has just started a nursery attached to a fee paying school. I chose the nursery because it is by far the best nursery in the area but unfortunately we can't afford to send her to the school itself as fees are £15k per year per child and we have two children.

We have friends who could afford private schooling but their children are in state schools and then others who can't afford it but are just scraping by because they like the status of children attending a private school.

We sent our DD to private school and I still consider it one of the best decisions I made because she's thriving and the teachers are v good although the homework is intense and always have been since year 2. I didn't like either local state school for different reasons (class sizes, OFSTED ratings weren't great etc) but I make sure I keep her grounded at home as there are so many incredibly wealthy kids at her school I don't want her to think it's normal. The thing I love the most is the school is a walk away and most of her friends are local so there is strong community sense.

It's expensive but worth it IMO.
I have to keep it quiet at work though as I find sending kids to private school seems to give people permission to be openly judgemental about you which isn't on.

Society produces all different types of people and the ones who do much harm to our environment are not just a by product of private education but w combination of both

I'd say much of the damage is caused by the extreme ends of both - the very richest attendees of the poshest of fee-paying schools and the most deprived attendees of the very scummiest failing state schools. I would however beg to suggest that the damage done by the 'cream' is of far more wide reaching harm than that done by the 'scum'.

*Top 1% of incomes pay a quarter of tax revenues
top 10% of incomes pay 60% of tax revenues

www.ft.com/content/afd88af6-3645-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3*

Take your point Tink but means nothing if the rich are still astoundingly rich and the state services are still starved of funds. I would be more interested to see if, in real terms, the poor by and large are paying a higher proportion of their assets on tax (inc VAT) than the rich. Bet any money they are.

This is what winds me up. The top 1% could lose literally two thirds of what they have and STILL be filthy rich. It is no cause for concern for them if they are paying a quarter of the nation's tax revenue between them, because it is paltry compared to their combined assets.

I would however beg to suggest that the damage done by the 'cream' is of far more wide reaching harm than that done by the 'scum'.

In what way?

means nothing if the rich are still astoundingly rich and the state services are still starved of funds

But the astounding rich would find it easy to beggar off abroad (like many already do, such as Branson, Philip Green, various pop/sports/film stars, models, TV presenters, etc) and then the UK would get nothing and total tax revenue would plummet.

Tax take from the "rich" fell when Brown introduced the 50% rate and increased when it was reduced down to 45%. Back in the 70s, many authors left the UK when we had the 98% tax rate. Doctors and dentists are reducing their working hours to avoid the marginal tax rate of 62% on earnings over £100k. Even senior teachers are going part time or putting more into pensions to get taxable income under £50k to avoid the child benefit tax. It's a VERY fine balancing act to try to raise more money in tax from "the rich" without killing the golden goose.

I refer you to exhibit (A), Cameron, David, and the referendum he called due to the agitations of among others exhibit (B), Rees-Mogg, Jacob... I could go on. The rich and powerful, when feral with power and delusions of infallibility, can do a lot more harm to a lot more people than the very worst violent, criminal addict at the opposite end of the economic and social spectrum.

@Ennirem I mean I can't think of a job in the world where you can't go part time, but if you don't want to there is no reason why you should.

In life, everything isn't black or white. There are various shades of black and white tooo.

I find it absurd that you are yet to acknowledge and accept the fact that I have found a school for my ds which caters to his and our needs, just like you have in your chosen state school. Why is this soo difficult to accept?

pacer142 -It's a VERY fine balancing act to try to raise more money in tax from "the rich" without killing the golden goose

This a 100 times!!!

pacer I get that. Which frankly makes me question the morality of 'the rich' although I try not to judge groups en bloc. And it's why I think the change to society will probably have to be more fundamental than just tweaking the income tax thresholds. Things like progressive land tax and state repossession of long term unused assets, severe restrictions and taxes on property ownership in the UK for non-doms... basically make it perfectly possible to 'leave' but not asset stripping the country on their way out.

I'm not an economist... and I'm not a politician. I just struggle to believe that this is the only way things can be. We are all fundamentally the same with the same needs to eat, sleep, breed, and be fulfilled. It cannot be rational or required that the means we have available to attempt to meet those needs should differ so wildly within the same city, for example.

Eminem - re- your comments about cycles of inequality, I don’t disagree, but anyone I know who can comfortably afford to put several DC through private school, is no doubt also in the situation of paying 45% tax on everything they earn. Obviously, if it costs £22 k per child and you have 3 DC, you need to clear over £60 pre tax, just to pay the fees. Some people have been left trust funds, etc, I guess, or others have grandparents who help out. But it goes without saying, 45% tax already hits people over a certain income bracket (and rightly so). I do think it’s wrong to portray people on high incomes as tax dodgers by default because they are not and how can they be?

As for the second homes argument - I’m sure you realise that this is no longer an straightforward solution due to stamp duty. We were recently forced to buy our new home as a “second home” - not intentionally by any means, but because the housing market in Central London is stagnating due to Brexit uncertainties, etc and we couldn’t sell the previous house (buyers pulling out), even though we had exchanged on a new one. The fact we now live in what is essentially a “second home” meant an extra £250 k in stamp duty tax, on top of the hefty stamp there was to pay anyway. There’s no getting around that. I guess what I’m saying is, people who have excess property assets are already taxed heavily for this privilege and disproportionally is in London where a 3 bed house that would cost £250 k in another part of the country, might cost A few million and another £xxx k in stamp on top.

In our borough, living in one side of the road can mean you’re in the catchment for a failing primary in the deprived estate round the corner, or, if you live on the other, you could be in the super-cool celeb-choice primary around the other corner. It’s a total postcode lottery, to the extent that people have lost all faith in the system and those who can, opt out, thereby deepening the divisions. Of course, as you say, children are all children, but also parents are parents and we have the right to do what we think is best for our children. You wouldn’t put your child in s failing hospital or daycare, assuming you had any choice whatsoever in the matter, so the same goes with schools, And once you have a child in a particular system, that becomes the norm and you would need very good reasons to disrupt them.

Sorry, mistype up there - what I meant was that to put 3 DC through school at a cost of £66 k, you are also paying another £60 k in income tax if you are taxed at 45%.

I find it absurd that you are yet to acknowledge and accept the fact that I have found a school for my ds which caters to his and our needs, just like you have in your chosen state school. Why is this soo difficult to accept?

I do accept it, and good for you! What I can't accept is that you are so happy to accept that there may be another family in your area with similar needs whose son would benefit just as much if not more than yours from attending the school... but they can't because their mum works long hours as a cleaner, rather than whatever lucrative field your skills and knowledge have 'placed' you in. How can you consider that just? And if it isn't just, how can you be so complacent about it?

I'm not saying you should take your son out; as a parent that would be crazy. But how can you not, as a member of society, want to see a world where good, appropriate education is available to all children regardless of their parent's bank balance? And if you don't think abolishing private school is part of that, as I do, what do you think will get us closer to that goal?

As for me, my kid is not yet two so I haven't chosen anything yet.

Ennirem once your socialist paradise is up and running there’ll just be a different lot of people at the top.
Do you honestly believe those in the Russian politburo lived like ordinary Russians?
Or Margot & Erich Honecker had to queue for hours each day for food and other necessities like ordinary East Germans?

As for the second homes argument - I’m sure you realise that this is no longer an straightforward solution due to stamp duty. We were recently forced to buy our new home as a “second home” - not intentionally by any means, but because the housing market in Central London is stagnating due to Brexit uncertainties, etc and we couldn’t sell the previous house (buyers pulling out), even though we had exchanged on a new one. The fact we now live in what is essentially a “second home” meant an extra £250 k in stamp duty tax, on top of the hefty stamp there was to pay anyway. There’s no getting around that. I guess what I’m saying is, people who have excess property assets are already taxed heavily for this privilege and disproportionally is in London where a 3 bed house that would cost £250 k in another part of the country, might cost A few million and another £xxx k in stamp on top.

But Mandarine, you have all that money to pay! Don't you see how colossally privileged that makes you compared to the majority? Tax on the wealthy is never too much while they are still left wealthy at the end of it and the poor are still poor. Loads of people's whole HOUSE won't be worth £250k, will be mortgaged to the hilt, and will be the only one they own. If they want to move and can't sell they'll be stuck with it until they can. And they are still the privileged ones compared to many as they can even scrape together a deposit and the expenses of buying a house, and have the credit to enable them to get a mortgage. Taxation and government policy is not going far enough if it is not touching these inequalities.

I have said countless times I don't expect private schooling families not to do so (although I don't intend to). What I do expect them to do is to recognise that what benefits them and their particular child is part of a larger social picture, and have the urge to make that wider societal picture better in what way they can (largely, by voting in governments that support more egalitarian policies and better funding for state education). I expect people to do that because it's the right thing to do at the macro level. I don't expect people to cut off their own child's nose to spite their face at the individual level. I don't know how many times I have to say it before it is understood.

Ennirem once your socialist paradise is up and running there’ll just be a different lot of people at the top.
Do you honestly believe those in the Russian politburo lived like ordinary Russians?
Or Margot & Erich Honecker had to queue for hours each day for food and other necessities like ordinary East Germans?

Oh Christ this again. snore Have I, at any point, suggested that we need to be just like Communist Russia or Soviet East Germany?

Why are people so blinkered they imagine the only way to do things is the way they have already been done?

These are the things that I think could make a difference

1. National voting age dropped to 17YO
2. compulsory to vote as per Australia. Don't moan if you didn't vote.
3. GP standard visit £5 exc children and chronically ill. Funds deployed to community social care. £10 charge non attendance of appointment.
4. increase income tax across the board 2% - health and education detailed on personal tax statement.
5. school unauthorised attendance £25 if not explained within 5 days.
6. cash incentive for state new grad teacher hires for some geographical areas - maybe this is done already. Fix all this, start reinvesting, fixing some of the postcode lottery that we've all be talking about then some (but not all) people who'can afford it wouldn't look towards the private sector in the first place.

The world is a totally different place now, capitalism has changed beyond all recognition, but people assume socialism would be exactly the same as it was when enacted in the 1900s.

Tink I notice that half of your measures penalise poor people and worsen their already precarious situation. You may think it is 'only fair' for penalties and charges to be 'across the board', but it's simply not so.

£10 for missing a GP appt is nothing to someone like me (well annoying but hey ho). For someone on JSA who misses the appt because a job interview suddenly come up (say) or they're feeling so poorly they accidentally fall asleep, or go to the wrong place by mistake (we all make mistakes) - it makes a serious dent in what they and their family have to live on that week. The measures are not 'fair' because they are not proportionate.

Ennirem once your socialist paradise is up and running there’ll just be a different lot of people at the top.
Do you honestly believe those in the Russian politburo lived like ordinary Russians?
Or Margot & Erich Honecker had to queue for hours each day for food and other necessities like ordinary East Germans?

And even taking this paranoiac, imagination-lacking stuff at face value, I can bet that the gap in income and standard of living enjoyed by the Heads of State you mention and the average citizen of their country, and in fact that between the income and standard of living enjoyed by the then presidents of the United States and their average citizens, will have been considerably smaller than the gaps that exist today between the leaders of all three countries and their average citizens. Because capitalism has gone mad and been manipulated to within an inch of its life, the inequalities have widened to such a degree that the social contract has all but disappeared.

Ennirem.....everybody pays for it because everybody uses it and what we've got at the moment is up shit creek. france charges for GP appointments - I bet the non attendance there is lower.

• Also free school lunch for infants should be reinstated, I thought it was a disgrace that the tories scrapped that.

longestlurkerever I wasn't referring to the original post but to the comments that read along the lines of 'I have a prestigious job and went to a state school so private obviously isn't worth it'. To me this is missing the point.

But everybody can't afford the same amount. I imagine you chose £10 as a sort of nominal slap-on-the-wrist amount (the actual cost of a DNA is of course far higher). But that means some people get a wrist-slap, and to others it's a punch in the face. It's not fair.

Ennirem - other than VAT on school fees and higher taxes for the wealthy - please list your manifesto for a fairer society where by people would not be tempted to ever look 'private'. I want to hear more.....?
You are an Oxford educated intelligent person, the brains elite. I am not.

Eminem - I do understand what you’re saying and I don’t disagree, but the fact is in any society, some people will always be entrepreneurs and wealth creators. People have different skill sets, regardless of their educational background, and you can never legislate against enterprise, plus it’s too simplistic to say “tax them all to the hilt!” These people create jobs and opportunities for others, as well as paying due corporation tax and half of their income in tax. I’ll be honest, DH has created maybe a thousand jobs in the UK in the last 15 years - from graduate level to directorships. To tax or restrict his businesses more would ultimately mean that the tax payers he employs may lose their jobs. Or they can’t expand and create more jobs. My DH came here as as a young child with his asylum seeker parents in the 70s. I’m not British either and it was education that brought me to this country. There is obviously a widening gulf in British society and education is key in how we can begin to address this, but I still would say life is fairer here than in so many parts of the world. I wish schools were more equally resourced; I wish all parents valued education as a route out if poverty. I don’t know what the answers are on any level, but I do know people, whatever their circumstances, will always do whatever is within their means for their families.