To support Kier Starmer’s school policy even though I would usually vote Blue…

[Blankspace4]

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-vows-tax-private-25072816

(Original article I read was on the BBC but they seem to have merged it in to another about general tax policy now)

I haven’t voted Labour at any point during my working life and in general am in favour of a meritocracy, free market, and low regulation

However this policy has touched a nerve, in a good way. I think it’s astounding private schools remain ‘charities’ and don’t pay tax. If parents can afford to send their children to private school, I’ve no real issue with it, but let them pay an additional 20% to properly contribute in line with their privilege.

Of course there is the counter argument that private school families already pay tax and therefore are funding schooling their own kids aren’t using.

But still, on balance I’m supportive.

What does everyone think?

I don’t really know tbh, I can see good arguments on both sides.

I do hope the maths stacks up though. It wouldn’t surprise me if a 20% increase in fees pushed a lot of extra kids into the state sector. It might end up costing the government more than they make back from it.

If it went to the kids and funding education I would too. However as we know with Labour it will not go to schools but to create more and more jobs to 'manage' schools. It will have very little impact on schools directly.

As I said in the other thread I hooe this would exclude special private schools (the children are paid for via their EHCP) otherwise we are removing disabled children's access to education

@Buttons294749 totally agree with you there

I think this would just make private schools even more elitist, as those serving middle class working families would be unlikely to survive the impact of such a tax. If you look at the accounts of charitable private schools, the little money they do make goes back into maintaining the school, no one is "profiting".

But ‘maintaining the school’ is inclusive of offering vast extra curricular sports, music, drama etc all of which state school children are largely squeezed out of in comparison. And likely the ‘facilities’ are a swimming pool and tennis courts and full auditorium.

Again, I’m not totally anti private education (although never benefitted from it myself or have anyone from my direct family that has) but those kids get SUCH a step up, i do feel the schools should do their bit, just like the rest of the economy has to.

Like them or not, private schools already save the government a fortune. They'd have to pay out of the government pot if any of these children go to state. You'd have to make sure more would stay and pay the VAT than you'd lose from some switching to state because of it. From a financial perspective

Just how much money does educating 6% of the population using state trained teachers actually save? As much as 20% of their income?

@Blankspace4 those things though often cost ££ on top of school fees and I really question (having put children through prep school) how much of an advantage things like extra piano lessons would really give the kids that much of a step up. I know the extra sports provision for example is still nowhere near as good as going to local specialist clubs (hockey, swimming) and these things are accessible for state school children. It's just easy to assume paying for private schools automatically gives your children an advantage but that's simply not true, they still have to work hard.

YABU - not all parents who choose to privately educated are rich and they stretch themselves to afford school fees. They also still pay full taxes despite not drawing from the education "pot" unlike in Australia where you can offset private school fees against taxes. A 20% increase in fees might see a pouring of privately educated children into the state school system thus stretching resources and increasing classrooms sizes. Do you really think the extra tax from the remaining privately educated will compensate, or is it perhaps another Labour policy which will most negatively impact the group of people they claim to protect?

If they don't give children an advantage there's no point having them so no loss if they go.

I can’t help wondering where all the extra state school places will come from, for the children of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Not exactly a minor detail.

Though having said that, fees for all independent schools are relatively a lot more expensive than they were even a few decades ago, and much more a prerogative of the very well off or frankly loaded. Fewer and fewer of the sort of middling, MC people who would have paid fees (say) in the 80s, can now afford to do so. The vastly increased cost of housing now is of course another factor.

My DS goes to a private specialist school, it’s funded by my LA as are most children who attend. This would push up the prices for LA making their SEN budgets even tighter, there would be less funds to then support SEN children and make places at schools for SEN children even harder for families to access.

It seems merely an attempt at waving the politics of envy in the hope of a voter carrot, and a bit of a smear of 'well anyone using independent education is swimming in gravy and deserves a kicking for it'.

Make private schools less affordable and many kids will just flood back into LA schools which just spreads the already thin resources thinner for all. A lot of those kids went out of LA schools in the first place because of additional needs the LA won't and can't afford to meet. Plenty of parents are either struggling often with wider family members to fund a place for their kid, are trying to get a place in any school at all or have given up and taken them out of school altogether, as the SEND situation is so bad. Not because the schools aren't trying, just because there aren't enough resources.

As with most things with Labour, this hasn't been thought through and is just intended to be an advertising soundbite.

As parents privately educating children, you are already paying tax for a service which you don't use.

You're likely to already be contributing via the highest tax brackets.

Just how much pressure does society want to keep piling on those who earn well but aren't multi-millionaires and likely make many sacrifices in order to privately educate?

How would the state sector cope with the extra pupils that would inevitably end up there as their parents would be priced out.

I'd far rather see a return of grammar schools. That would be a policy I would vote for.

It wouldn’t necessarily lead to a 20% increase in fees as VAT on costs could be recovered. Although the 80% business rates relief would also be lost. I can see it encouraging the more well off public schools investing heavily in new facilities in order to recover the input VAT. It would almost certainly mean more independent schools leaving the Teachers’ Pensions scheme too.

@arethereanyleftatall

Like them or not, private schools already save the government a fortune. They'd have to pay out of the government pot if any of these children go to state. You'd have to make sure more would stay and pay the VAT than you'd lose from some switching to state because of it. From a financial perspective

As per the other thread financially it is suspect

It will not bring much material benefit to state

Fund state but don’t make it punitive against independent

Imo it’s counter productive and using children as a political pawn not in a good way.

To be clear, I don’t agree the policy should apply to SEN schools where there is a clear

I’m talking about blatant elitism

I may sound as if I have a chip on my shoulder (I don’t) - I now work in a relatively high paid career with lots of peers who were privately educated and the networks and confidence they have really give them a huge leg up that state educated kids often don’t benefit from.

I repeat I’m not totally against, but the Tory agenda to ‘level up’ is never going to touch public schools as so many of them benefitted from it and they remain ‘old boys’ ()

Additionally - many private schools have huge endowment funds / investments on their balance sheet in addition to their annual fee income. What do they contribute to wider society? I’m just left thinking they could do more and shouldn’t be shielded by charitable status

Op how much extra per state student do you think there would be due to the policy?

And how much would the state sector increase by so also needing extra funding

I disagree, parents are all paying towards state schools and not using the space for their child. My DCs go to a small ish not selective or fancy private school, we would 100% not be able to afford it if it was 20% higher, in fact looking at my DCs classes I reckon 60 or 70% would be able to. In our area already the state schools, esp primary are at their limits and are having to add in portacabins in the playgrounds. The government would have to invest heavily in the schools to accommodate this.

My youngest DC has additional needs which is catered for there that wouldn't be in a state school, it isn't a special needs school though it just has a specific learning support unit which is accessed by 25% of the children attending.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I can't see where they've said private schools will be forced to charge 20% more, just that they'll have to quite rightly pay tax. Perhaps decommission a swimming pool?

I think its absolutely the right thing to do. Absolutely investment in state schools will have to come from it. Good. The money has to come from somewhere and there's no good reason whatsoever that private schools are a 'charity'.

@Ijustreallywantacat my thoughts exactly

I work for a private school. We could certainly afford to pay tax on our earnings and should in my opinion.

Calling most independent schools charities is ludicrous.

It’s 20% of surplus. If they’re loss making then there’s nothing to pay.

Where the school I work at would be adding £120k a year to the public purse which I think is a very good thing and we’ve been expecting it for years.

I think it would be good to exempt schools which are solely for those with SEND but otherwise I’m all for it.

I’ve never voted Conservative and wouldn’t vote for any party on the basis of one policy alone.

Oh this is VAT rather than Corp Tax.

But different but I’d largely support it.

We’d just swallow the additional cost and reduce our surplus.

Absolutely agree that private schools should not be able to hold charitable status

The costs passed on to parents would be for the vast majority affordable

Never have I heard such pleading poverty as I have at ds prep and high school if you can afford be it 5k, 10k or 20k for one child you are far more privileged than the majority of society

The schools around here are raking it in with their open days, application costs, trail exams days they are extremely well functioning and successful businesses as many private schools are

But wait we shall here how many save their pennies to send their child to private school