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?

There's a daft assumption on here that every private school is eton-like.

Most of these schools operate on very low margins. Quite a few closed during the pandemic creating pressure on the schools around them. Most don't have their own sports grounds and have to share with other schools.
Some don't have full time sencos and have to rely on ambulant provision.
The kids I know who go private don't do it for the privilege. They need smaller classes I.e. more support than state could provide with a ratio of 1:30 (or in reality 1:32 with a part time ta)
Not everyone is looking as far ahead as gcse to choose going private. They just want their kid to make it through the current school year.
Not everyone rocks up in private helicopters and holidays in the Swiss alps. It's mostly cycling and butlins.

This move sounds like a "we want to tax the rich" move without actually identifying what "rich" looks like. It is like a stab in the dark and hope we hit the right pockets kind of move.

Honestly a blanket policy on private schools will never be fair because of this assumption.

www.ft.com/content/28ce1fb5-f1a3-4bfc-bed1-954172f7200c
42 private schools closed in 2020 versus 6 in a typical year

Ridiculous idea that hasn't been thought out and assumes everyone who sends their children to private schools is rich.

I think it's positive that you don't oppose every idea the "other side" proposes just because they're the other side. We need more of that in politics.

As for the policy itself, I haven't made up my mind.

@ufucoffee

Ridiculous idea that hasn't been thought out and assumes everyone who sends their children to private schools is rich.

It’s got nothing to do with parents being rich. It’s about business paying the appropriate amount of tax and not being subsidised by the tax payer.

@MoveAhoy
I own a company
I pay the appropriate tax.
Education aside from sen is a business not a charity in my personal opinion

If I couldn’t pay my taxes my business wouldn’t be viable. It’s fuck all to do with affordability for parents

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

Only 7% of young people are privately educated. How is making their parents pay more fees going to improve the networks and confidence of 93% of young people?

If independent schools lose their charitable status then I suppose they won’t need to provide any public benefit going forwards? That will mean the loss of bursaries and letting their facilities out to the community for public use. I’m not sure this policy will achieve what the headline sets it out to.

I’m pretty right wing but I have always felt very uncomfortable about private schools (even though I will probably end up sending mine to one, in the interests of doing what is best for them). But if I had my way they would all be abolished. I hate this social apartheid that private schools create. So I have voted YANBU, even though Labour’s policies generally are as far away from my political ideology as it is possible to get.

YABU for usually voting for the Conservatives ; they are are decimating the NHS

The truth is that these kind of policies are just pointless and tinkering around the edges. Private schools are an obsession for Labour. In the real world the voting public has bigger fish to fry. Does anyone really think that red wall voters stay awake at night worrying about private schools or would go back to labour because of this policy. Labour have well and truly lost the plot if this counts as policy.

@Getawaywithit

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

Only 7% of young people are privately educated. How is making their parents pay more fees going to improve the networks and confidence of 93% of young people?

It’s not. It’s just another irrelevant, hair brained idea from yet another focus group, I am sure. It’s a fringe issue that only the ideologically driven care about. The general public is pragmatic, not ideologically driven.

@Limejuiceandrum

Education aside from sen is a business not a charity in my personal opinion
Here we must agree to disagree. Tertiary education I could concede but primary and secondary, yeah.. nah.. very debatable.

If I couldn’t pay my taxes my business wouldn’t be viable. It’s fuck all to do with affordability for parents
again yeah... nah... a shoe is a shoe. shouldn't matter who is wearing it, we should all pay the same taxes on it? yeah... nah. for kids the VAT is removed. sometimes, concessions are made based on affordability, especially when money is changing hands over something children require. taking affordability into account already has precedents set where services to children are concerned.

It feels like there is astonishment that private schools are not dying a natural death.
the growth of the private education sector signals that something is wrong in the state system but instead of fixing it, it seems labour is just thrashing around like a headless chicken screaming that something is wrong with the state system. Most children who go through the state system do well but it does not cater for all.

This does seem to be about bashing the parents not really about fixing a tax loop hole. Private schools are not hoarding cash like the Amazons and Apples of this world.

There seems to also be an annoyance that children who were middling in the state system, switch to private and then end up with this air of inexplicable confidence.
Well in my anecdotal experience, a child surrounded by attention will eventually believe in its ability to achieve. Yes some schools have the added bonus of having famous names rolling off their tongues but even for the ones that don't have this, having someone believe in your ability (even if it is only because they were paid do it) has an effect on children. it is not necessarily about rubbing shoulders with power. State schools do aspire to this but quite frankly it is unachievable for ALL children with the current ratios and demands on teachers. punishing those who dare to demand this for their children whilst not actually providing the service they require is a recipe for increasing the number of children who simply fall behind in school.

I think you have to ask yourself, what are schools for, fundamentally?

Are they an institution that the state imposes on as many as possible in order to achieve some kind of equality of outcome? Or are they a way for parents to make sure their kids get a good education? Who ultimately should get to decide about kid's education, parents, or the state? Is it ok for the state to effectively punish parents for wanting a different kind of education for their kids, or for doing their duty as parents in taking responsibility for their kids education?

There's also a tendency to think in terms of elite institutions, but that doesn't describe all private education, nor what it could be. It could equally be a group of people who for some reason object to the state education provided, and band together at some local church hall to provide something they feel is better. If you objected to what the state education looked like, how would you feel about having to shell out an extra 20% to educate your kids, when you were already doing your part with regard to supporting state schools?

Totally agree should have been done years ago. Upperclassman privalage.

I think it's a bad idea. Private schools share a lot of their facilities with local state schools, whether that be their swimming pools, astro turf pitches or halls. Ours also provide access to various areas of the school to the community for free including art rooms. All of that will go.

Not all schools are full of wealthy people and not all private schools are wealthy and able to subside a tax change. Don't underestimate thr number of private school children being moved into state education should fees raise 20 percent.

Is it ok for the state to effectively punish parents for wanting a different kind of education for their kids, or for doing their duty as parents in taking responsibility for their kids education?

Bizarre statement.
Do you think the plebs who send their kids to state do not want the best for their kids? They they're not taking responsibility?

Threads like these are a really unfortunate window in to how the other half think and live, I've got to say.

Moveahoy, don't all kids 'need' smaller classes?

Ridiculous idea that hasn't been thought out and assumes everyone who sends their children to private schools is rich.

If you can afford private school, and you haven't had a substantial scholarship or whatever, then you ARE RICH.

The politics of envy and resentment.

In reality this would mean schools moved from charities to businesses. It’ll take some years to work out the red tape on that.

Once they’re no longer charities schools won’t need to fund bursaries. At our school half the pupils are on reduced or no fees. So it will no longer accommodate children from less well off families. I suspect it will lead to a fee reduction rather than increase for full payers.

Yes inequality can indeed breed resentment

I’m confused about what’s being proposed. Education services are vat exempt AFAIK- that’s not related to charitable status and applies to all education providers, including EFL tutors, universities etc. Taking away charitable status wouldn’t affect that, as far as I’m aware, unless he’s also planning to take away the vat exemption for education in which case it will affect far more businesses than private schools. Any tax people know exactly what the proposal is?

I’m happy for private schools to lose charitable status but hope it will be done in a way that doesn’t lead to even more pressure on the state system, and I’ve yet to hear how that will be done. I’m also far from convinced that it will do anything to solve the problems in the state sector. The amount of media focus on private schools at the expense of the state sector has always appalled me, likewise the media focus on Oxbridge at the expense of the rest of higher and further ed.

I’ll support it when faith schools - funded by taxpayers - are abolished. That’s the reason our one DC is in private school as our closest schools were faith based and we weren’t prepared to pretend order for him to get in. All schools are oversubscribed in our area so faith schools fill up on the faith criteria and looked after children. We couldn’t afford an extra 20% on fees just as we couldn’t afford to move or have another child so the school is just about doable. We were - after 6 months on state school waiting lists - offered a state school 45minutes by tube and bus away. In the opposite direction to work so even when we did get a state place it wasn’t viable.

I resent paying tax for some of the biggest landowners in the UK to swell their coffers by using schools admission as an incentive to get families attending worship. If you want to raise your child in a faith you still can. Faith in schools is divisive and die shy make you any better at maths etc. Get rid of that and I’ll be able to send my kid to a local school. Raise the bar on the standard of all schools and resource them properly.

I am actually opposed to needing private schools but they do fill a gap in demand as our situation shows. So if this policy comes in then extra capacity in state is needed.

Our school does a lot for charity collects kilos of food for food bank every Friday, several fundraising drives and shares facilities and music programmes etc with other local schools. Also took in non pupil keyworker kids during lockdown. We are well aware of our privilege that we had the option. Still don’t think private schools should exist but given our alternatives I’m glad they do.

It won’t matter a jot to the well endowed schools. Their investments will keep them going. They’re not going to close, they’ll simply become more elite, shutting out children from this country who can’t afford their fees and attracting overseas students.

Is it a coincidence that girls’ schools will be the ones most affected? They haven’t been established anything like as long as the Harrows and Etons and don’t have those reserves and investments.

I think you do have a chip on your shoulder because you are envious. Why have you excluded SEN schools? There are lots of children with SEN who can’t go to a private school? What level of SEN does your exemption extend to? Is it because you feel no threat from SEN children as you don’t think they will achieve more than your own DC?