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!

I think it’s naive to think that no private schools would mean parents put children in state I think it’s more likely that parents would band together to ‘homeschool’ using tutors so a small private school in all but name without the inspections and safeguards.
Out of interest I checked private girls secondary school in town I used to live in - £1900 a year fees and 8 girls on roll. I suspect these girls would disappear from school altogether and be home educated not go to local mixed state. There are no single sex state schools locally.

If you've spent all your money on school fees, you obviously don't have it anymore!

But you have the option of sending your children to a state school, so there is a safety net of being able to release the amount you spend on school fees to cover other essentials, which people who are already state educating their children don't have.

What people who are well-off don't always realise is that for some, there are no significant cut backs they can make because they are already spending the minimum possible.

While free education is available to all in this country, educating your children privately is a luxury - and an expensive one - so I can't accept arguments that people who make this choice are hard up.

I don't like the idea of the impact this could have on kids having to move schools because their parents wouldn't be able to afford this change. They didn't make this decision, but it would be them it would hurt.

But yes, it's a luxury and I don't see a problem with the policy. Maybe only applying this after a certain year, or not kids that are already in the school, or giving two years notice to give people a chance to save or make other arrangements.

Imagine pulling a kid out of school half way through GCSEs and sending them to a completely different school, private or not. It should be avoided where possible.

Exactly. Do people not realise that by sending their children to private schools, these families are 'saving' the public education system money? It's not rocket science.

Having had much experience of both private and state schools, I think most people agree that private school is not worth paying for unless you can afford to miss the money. So, yes unless you have money to burn. If using a private school means that you have to scrimp in other areas then it isn’t worth it.

Where I live, there has been a big drop in the number of people willing to pay for private School now. It is generally only people who are noticeably rich who do. Class sizes have dropped from 18 to 12 in even the most popular school which used to be over subscribed but now isn’t.

@goldfinchonthelawn because I don't think they deserve to be classed as charities. Providing private education for money is certainly not a charitable act. And lending out your pool (often at a commercial rate) to a couple of local schools or offering a couple of token burseries shouldnt' be enough to get the vast benefits that charitable status gives them.

It's because private schooling is a luxury. A luxury most of us can't afford. You have the option to send your child to school for free.

I think a staggered implementation is a good idea.

Or maybe they'd just pay the 20% VAT, like we do on most luxuries, it's not like they're being outlawed

That's just not true @DreamingOfSoftWhiteSand - proven over and over that it strips children in the state section of social mobility. But if that's what you tell yourself to sleep at night by all means go ahead.

They shouldn’t be allowed to register as charities unless they give out decent bursaries. And most don’t any more.

I have never said that anywhere, ever. As you would know if you had read my posts. So, there's no good asking me why I feel that way, as I don't feel that way at all.

You'll be enjoying the recent tax cuts then 😉

If you have kids in private school, your taxes still go to contribute to state schools but then you are also paying to not have the state pay for your kids to be in school. You are also paying for thousands of people employed in the private sector. It’s not very hard to understand

So you choose to drive a car rather than go by bus/train.
Your choice.
Same thing.

Not very hard to understand.

But the fact that councils save money by not having to educate private school kids does not make private schools a charity!

When we are all being encouraged to embrace cold homes and wearing blankets in the house, then private education is clearly a luxury.

Surely VAT should be added onto private school fees,and they shouldn't attract charitable status either. Other luxury items attract VAT why should private schools be different?.
And as for saying people who send their children to private schools aren't wealthy they just choose to spend money that way. Some people can't afford to feed their children. Or to heat their homes.

But also meaning the ruling elite have no incentive to make sure state schools are actually good and funded properly - the schools wouldn't be closed down, they'd just be treated like the businesses they are, rather than charitable bodies, which they may have been 300 years ago, but aren't anymore

Don’t people pay for lots of things to put their children at an advantage? Buying a nice house once you have kids or moving to a house with a garden even if it makes your commute longer are examples. What about all the people who buy houses in expensive areas so they are near excellent state schools? Or even just people who move / rent next to good schools? What about my husband and I who moved from a quite poor country to the UK in part because I wanted the guarantee of a British state school over the alternative in my home country which is infinitely crapper? By your standards it’s even immoral to pay to use a human trafficker to flee a war zone for the sake of your children.

They could add VAT but also let parents not using the state education places have a refund.

cloutneerbeout · Today 13:21

If all the MPs with privately educated children suddenly had to send their children to state schools I guarantee the government would suddenly magically find the money desperately needed to improve state educational provision.

Plenty of MPs send their children to state schools. Why would state schools suddenly improve if those who don’t were to to suddenly do so?
Why aren’t the MPs with children at state school doing something about it.

They do. But they do not expect a tax benefit for doing so.

Indeed. Let’s ask the exchequer if he’d rather have the VAT on school fees or state schools having to pay slightly more for swimming lessons

If you buy books rather than use the library no one congratulates you on saving the council money.
Public services are there for everyone to use. Some people use private services instead. I am happy people have the choice. But it is simply a choice and not one that should attract preferential tax treatment.

If you have no children, you are paying for the state to educate other people's children - and the same argument could be made for lots of taxpayer funded things that not everyone can benefit from. That's how taxes work - it's not pay-as-you-go.