it's daft to think parents with kids in private school have money to burn?

[Popgoestheweaselagain]

Just got asked by my school what would be the impact if they had to pay VAT, adding 20% to fees. My response was 'I'd try to keep my child in the school, but ....'. I think almost all parents would respond this way. Alarmed, did a quick google, and found this is Labour policy. Next time they come knocking at my door looking for my vote, I'll be telling them why they can't have it!

Now, I understand why some people are ideologically opposed to private schools, the unfariness etc. But when I hear this argument that goes something like 'Those people must have loads of money because they send their kids to private school' it kind of annoys me. Money is finite. If you've spent all your money on school fees, you obviously don't have it anymore!

Absolutely. If private schools lose their charitable status and register as vatable businesses they would charge vat on fees but would then be able to reclaim, as any other registered business, the vat on everything they buy.

I believe that as long as rich parents have the option of sending their children to private schools, then the government will never have the political will to adequately fund state schools. Private schools already have tax advantages that support the status quo.

And yes, I have enough money to send my children to private schools, but I don't because I believe that it would be morally wrong to do so.

People always quote this as some sort of gotcha - I don't actually see a contradiction. She wanted private schools abolished because, presumably, she saw the inequality they breed and the deleterious effect they have on the state system by draining teaching talent and wealthy parental investment from it. She recognises how this disadvantages state school children. However, as it was not within her power to abolish it single-handedly, and recognising the inequity of the system, of course she paid for her son to be on the winning side of that inequity. Who wouldn't? Not to mention her son as a black boy would already be on the boot-end of a raft of systematic inequality, and any leg-up she could give him in such a corrupted and unequal system within her power would be a no-brainer. If anything it speaks well of her that she would campaign against something immoral she herself was in a position to be benefitting from.

👏

But no one is claiming that someone buying a house to get into a good catchment area shouldn't have to pay Stamp Duty, are they?

So if Parent A wants to give their kid an advantage by buying a house in a good catchment area, and Parent B wants to do so by sending them to a private school, why should Parent A pay normal tax on their transaction, but Parent B should not pay normal tax on their transaction?

I meant to say some state schools outperform the private schools

It will be fine for international parents in top boarding schools because the pound has crashed anyway…
However, it won’t be fine for UK parents at large if school fees rise even more. Once there are not enough UK kids left, the internationals will stop coming too. They look for enough British kids, including in the top schools.

Why not kill some more stuff which Britain is actually none for worldwide, good private schools. We might as well take a sledge hammer to everything …

Most parents won’t be able to afford another 20 pc. So many schools will probably end up closing. Lots have valuable land so would like to know where that will go. The staff might go into the state sector where there is a shortage so that could be good.

Here is what the more well known private schools may be able to do. Sell of their land and open in another country somehow. Take the brand with them. Take the young staff willing to relocate with them.

After that, many international kids will not arrive to UK anymore, less qualified international students staying on. It doesn’t make sense. Not least because if UK private schools are no longer “famous”, then the UK unis will end up suffering too.
At the moment, there is a huge hypocrisy going on in UK unis. They have slashed places to local private school kids from UK but are filling the places with higher fee paying international students, some of which have gone to school in UK.

UK education brand devalues further. And it is something the UK is known for worldwide. US unis will love it. Everyone wants the next generation of Asian whizz kids etc.

So whatever labour ends up doing, they need to be careful how they do it.

@3WildOnes you have a very good point. Increase of fees may force property prices up in catchment areas, forcing kids than need the decent state schools into areas where schools are worse. This isn't the win the LP think it is.

I can't vote for them anyway because of their self ID stance and they seem overly involved in gender identity ideology. Etc

No, argue all you like but actually think about all of the outcomes and how that will affect the education system as a whole.

Not RTFT but it just makes an elitist thing even more elitist.

Because Parent B will also pay stamp duty on their house. Paying private school fees doesn’t negate the need to have a house. You can’t pick two totally different transactions and compare them.

How defeatist!

It is by being ideological that we are able to improve reality.

Stamp duty would apply to person A and person B though?

My child is in private school because the state school she was at didn’t teach her anything in three years. Not a thing. They only taught the bottom half of the class, and rest of the time went of controlling the 5 SEN kids in the class. The top half of the class were just ticked off the list as already satisfactory and given colouring in or repetitive tasks.

So now I pay twice for DD’s education: I pay huge amounts of tax that goes towards state school places for other people’s children, and I also pay £15000 a year so that my DD gets an actual education.

I despise this current ‘government’, but the problem with Labour is they are so full of hatred towards anyone who isn’t just like them. They would genuinely rather all children get a low level education than that highly academic children get taught at a high academic level.

Our private school, by the way, gives many free places to low income families, and also shares its facilities (for free) with the local state schools - swimming, sports pitches, minibuses, computer labs, etc. They do that to retain their status as a charity. If Labour decide to tax private schools, the local state schools can say good bye to all of that. What’s the point?

Just another way in which Labour chooses to remain unelectable and unelected 🤦‍♀️

@DuckBilledFattypus Sure, but they shouldn't expect to have tax breaks for going there.

Depends on the crapness of the state options really doesn't it?

My parents sent my brother to a private school. They couldn't afford to. We had years without holidays and running an old banger car that kept breaking down because they couldn't afford to service it properly. They also got into debt to do it. They did that because the crap comp state school that he started going to was like the Wild West with kids carrying knives and beating up other pupils they didn't like! My parents felt that they had no alternative. It wasn't a "prime" private school, just a pretty standard one out in the regions and most of the other pupils were there for similar reasons - few, if any, were of "monied" parents.

Many parents stretch to the max, some even downsize to send their kids private because the state fails SEN children. I know several parents who have children in independent specialist schools who have been failed by the state system. They have sensory needs/ are autistic and can't manage the big classes/ schools etc. So I think Labour need to be more nuanced in their approach.
Yet again policy is being decided on ideological grounds.

Because the school is worried about potential impact on their business, than benefit to the entire spectrum of population, so they are indirectly advising parents to vote against labour.
Schools didn't warn parents to ask them about impact of brexit on families household income and loss of future opportunities for their kids.

And I suppose you take all that money you saved and donate it to the poor right?

Seriously - just that and you wouldn’t vote Labour? After the shit show the Tories are giving us?? That’s a bit short sighted.

This.

I also think charity status is undeserved by the vast majority of private schools. Hiring out your facilities, at commercial rates, to local groups and state schools, is not charitable.

So what about the state schools that don't happen to be near a private school?

It's not like private schools tend to situate themselves in deprived areas with struggling state provision for poor families is it?

It will be fine for international parents in top boarding schools because the pound has crashed anyway…

Interestingly they could vote for Liz Truss as members of the Tory party, and not actually be able to vote in a General Election (which is why I caveated my comment upthread).

This, in spades. I am also a Diane in that I would prefer private schools don’t exist but they do and me not sending my kids isn’t going to change that. So faced with the options I have got I will make the best choices for my children that my financial circumstances allow. Any good parent does. No one is going to send their child to an utterly shit school and curtail their life chances while they have money sitting in the bank. They will either move house to a good catchment or go private. Anything else would be pretty bad parenting because you would be throwing your own child under the bus because of principles. Principles are great, but my kids lives are worth more to me and most other people I suspect.

But Parent B can buy a cheaper house in a less affluent area because their catchment area doesn't matter. Parent B is specifically choosing a more expensive house in a more exclusive location to get to a better catchment area, so will end up paying more stamp duty in order to derive an advantage for their kids.

Now, the obvious solution here is to work towards a system where there is no need to game the system because the state sector can provide a high quality education to all children. But until we get that, I'm not sure why parents choosing to give their child a benefit in one way (expensive house) should pay tax on that choice, but other parents choosing to give their child a benefit in another way (private school) shouldn't have to do likewise.