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?

My children's school offers free places to 20% of the student population, based on parents' income. It's a very selective school, so this helps clever children whose parents would not be able to afford the fees. If the Labour proposal went through I would expect the school to reduce or eliminate this type of financial support before the fees for those who pay are increased. The result would be that poorer children are pushed back into an already overcrowded state system. Be wary of unintended consequences!

We've got one at private, and an extra 20% on fees would probably tip it out of affordability for us. From what I know of the other families I'd guess a substantial proportion would be in the same boat - there are some parents who are properly rich as hell and wouldn't notice, but there are plenty others who are stretching themselves to do it. And I grew up on a council estate, on benefits, so I understand that we are wealthier than average and that it's not even an option for many, but that doesn't mean that my pockets are bottomless and that the extra £££ could be easily found. Unless there's a snap election timing would mean that our eldest would only have a couple of years left to go (I'm assuming late 2024 election, probably wouldn't so actually come in to tax regs until April 2026) and we'd probably end up getting in to debt to avoid disrupting education in the exam years, but we absolutely wouldn't be sending our youngest (big gap means they won't be there simultaneously)

In our nearest city it's nearly 30% who are in private by high school. Some travel in but it's probably still about 25% of those who live in the area. The state schools are in many cases already over capacity (especially in the areas where most of the private school kids live and would be entitled to a space) and there is already a list of schools waiting for funding to allow them to be expanded just to cope with the current state school pupil numbers. A reduction of, say, 20% in private school pupils (which is perfectly possible over a few years as people not only pull out existing pupils but don't send future ones) would leave the local education system utterly fucked. They'd need significant extra funds that the local council do not currently have, and they would need it both upfront (to cover expansion costs) and on an ongoing basis (to cover the roughly £7k a year per extra pupil).

I'd be fairly surprised if the numbers would actually stack up to have a financial benefit once everything was taken in to consideration. In theory it might improve equality, but it would overall lower standards for years as too many pupils are squeezed in to schools with inadequate space, resources and funding.

Other areas will be different, but the state primary our DC was at before we moved them had already had to be expanded twice and the council openly admitted that a reduction in kids being sent private after the financial crash was the main reason that it was needed. That school is full again, and there's no more space to extend it. Which is fairly typical of the schools which would be the worst affected around here.

Its not just the children whose increased fees can not be paid that will flood back into the state system but also that lots of smaller schools will be forced to close down because of loss of fees so those children will come back into state system too. Families who can afford it will buy around the best state schools which will effectively become state funded privates as a result. They'd have to move to a lottery system for schools. Private schooling would become more and more elitist - which is exactly what the politics of envy is trying to prevent

Also - when my daughter moved to secondary school, she passed the entrance exam and was offered a place at the local grammar school. We didn't take it, as she preferred the selective private school she also had an offer for. If the fees for the private had been (even) higher, we may have taken up the grammar school place, potentially depriving a child from a less well-off household.

Well, don’t stress, Labour won’t get in anyway.

@Macncheeseballs

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

My point exactly. This move will not accomplish that. It instead tries to simply get money out of those whose children will not survive never mind thrive in the current state system. All while implying that the state system only needs a little bit of a propping up to meet the same ratios. An acknowledgement that the current system has faults and a massive rethink with overhaul is needed. Not a cash grab which won't raise much and cause more pressure.

Why is everyone talking about 20%? What is the source for that?

I have 2 DC in private, an extra 20% increase in fees would mean they would have to leave and our LA would need to find them 2 state school places, in our already over subscribed schools. Given the demographic of our school, I could see easily 30%-40% of parents in the same situation. There are 1,200 children at DC's school so that's an extra 400 state school places that would need to be found, in our borough within about a year. If the school ended up closing because it was no longer viable, it's 1,200 state school places that would need to be found at short notice.

The £4k a month I spend on fees would be diverted to tutors and extra curriculum activities.

B.o.o. h.o.o.

@LadyWithLapdog

Why is everyone talking about 20%? What is the source for that?

Its a case of VAT being added to school fees

Once again, what’s the point of this policy. It’s about as irrelevant as Labour is nowadays. Does anyone really believe that red wall voters in Grimsby or Tyneside care about this nonsense politics of envy. This is a middle class problem for metropolitan class warriors who are so out of touch that they make it their mission to rage against private education. It’s frankly politically illiterate.

Why does no one ever question the fairness of state funded grammar schools? How can it be fair that parents pay their taxes and some children get the privilege of a tax pay funded excellent education, on a par or better than many independent schools?
Why is it fair that people can afford to buy a house near to an excellent state funded comprehensive and other people either cannot afford it or can‘t move?
The vast majority of independently educated children are not attending Eton, Harrow etc and the parents are not in the socioeconomic group of Johnson et al.
This is an easy vote winner for Labour but won‘t make up for their apparent contempt for their core voters and their obsession with fringe politics.

It won't happen. Every time Labour has a conference they throw red meat of the 'soak the rich' variety to the rabid left of the party, but we all know that many of these pledges made at conferences never go anywhere (whichever party it is). But it generates headlines, it gets people all frothed up (either cheering or booing), and that's what the party wants - headlines.

Remember, Labour have actually got to WIN an election first, something they've only achieved in the past 40 years under Tony Blair and New Labour .... which is a hell of a long way from where they are now politically.

@Blossomtoes

the VAT this is mad, seeing as it’s considerably LESS that it would cost the state to educate those children in the first place.

Do you have some evidence for that or are you making an assumption?

Well, it's just maths.

The government spends £6000 per secondary school child per year. £5200 per primary school child.

In my non-London city in the SE, private secondary school is about £18000 pa, so VAT on top of that would be in the region of £3600, which is less than £6000.

Primary school is a bit less, more like £15,000, so VAT is £3k.

The 615,000 children in the UK in independent schools are saving the government roughly £3.56 billion per annum.

That's a pretty good deal, surely?

It's worth repeating that that's 18k pa of SPENDING per child in independent secondaries, compared to £6k in state school, which is derisory. Imagine what state schools could do with a TRIPLED budget. But it's easier to demonise privates than to raise the quality of states, right?

Reading some of these replies just shows out out of touch some people are

And why so many children who go through the private school system become so entitled

It’s a privilege, tighten your belt a bit more and you will find the money

Others are having to to feed their children and heat their homes ffs

I’m not interested in your maths @astoundedgoat. I was after a verified official source. Which clearly doesn’t exist. I’m not just going to take your word for it.

Those sums sound about right though?

If the numbers don’t stack up then they don’t.

Unless any part of those figures is incorrect

It would also hit vocational schools badly where there are children on MDS and DaDa awards

@Blankspace4 I would be really interested to know why you vote Tory, since your ideology seems to be at odds with theirs. This is a genuine question and I promise to be polite and respectful should you take the time to reply. For full disclosure I am very anti-Tory.

@MarshaBradyo

Those sums sound about right though?

If the numbers don’t stack up then they don’t.

Unless any part of those figures is incorrect

Those numbers are actually worse where we are (in terms of the balance that would be needed) - school fees are a bit lower and the state spending a bit higher.

Here's the state spending broken down by local authority for Scotland - www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100140749/

These are 2018/19 numbers and coming out averaging £5.4k for primary, £7.4k for secondary. There are a couple of boarding schools with much higher fees but the day schools all keep their fees pretty close together - locally they're roughly double state expenditure per head.

If you assumed that the taxpayer actually received 15% of remaining fees - to allow for the fact that the school would be able to reclaim VAT on their costs, very rough assumption, then here that would mean that you'd need to make sure that about 77% of the previous number attending private remained there just to cover the annual costs of education. That's ignoring the upfront costs of making the extra spaces appear in the state system which would be significant.

@Blossomtoes

I’m not interested in your maths *@astoundedgoat*. I was after a verified official source. Which clearly doesn’t exist. I’m not just going to take your word for it.

ifs.org.uk/publications/15025

More data here: www.besa.org.uk/key-uk-education-statistics/

I'm not trying to trick you, @Blossomtoes

@StatisticallyChallenged you'd need to make sure that about 77% of the previous number attending private remained there just to cover the annual costs of education.

My kids go to an independent school. There are a few parents who seem to be swimming in money, definitely, but I'd say more than half would have to pull their kids out with a 20% increase. Certainly we would.

There's no way anything like three quarters of the kids would stay. And there's no way the local state schools could absorb them.

And with that percentage of children leaving it is highly likely several of the schools would become unviable and close.

@Isabellabasil I’m happy to try and answer, and thank you for being so reasonable which definitely isn’t always the case. I hate the fact that ‘tribalism’ stifles sensible debate.

I would say I am socially liberal but usually economically conservative. By that I generally mean low intervention / low taxation and free market, pro enterprise. I was certainly anti-Brexit but I was even more so anti-Corbyn and all he stood for. I felt he demonised people like me (I work in the finance industry).

The school point touched a nerve as I genuinely do not see how or why they should have charitable status and believe they should pay their way with VAT / Corporation Tax like other private enterprises must.

There are other private enterprises who are not required to charge VAT though - how do you feel about sticking VAT on nursery fees?