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!

What about the 47pc of children at my DC private school who are on 100% bursaries? Their parents won't be able to pay 20% of 20k or £4000 presumably?

It's disgusting that they focus on how to pay for schools for everyone rather than just the rich.

(And yes, those paying school fee's are rich, 99% of the time. Of course, there will be a few outliers, but in the very very vast majority, those paying school fee's are rich)

Are people sneering? Or do they just not think that private school parents should have a tax benefit from doing it?

Of course education is a right. PRIVATE education is a luxury.

I think it is a very short sighted policy for two reasons. Firstly, 20% is a huge hike fees and would definitely price many families out, flooding the state system. Secondly, if families are able to continue to pay the fees it is likely to be at the cost of luxuries on which they are already paying VAT, so it will not actually make much extra for the government.

I'm not. Our household income is £150k plus. I think private schools are utterly immoral.

I find many, many things immoral. I don't think they should be taxed and/abolished.

Anyone who is anti-private school is a) jealous or b)sneery according to those who utilise them.

Intersted in what tax free things you find immoral

Because bums on seats gives schools money. And more demand would equal more schools.

It's not like all the private kids would have to sit on laps is it.

Agree

Well, I do.

It’s business VAT should be payable.
i would be in favour of a longer notice period of rises than is usual though, because of the moral implication of children having to leave a school.

Parents who send their children to fee paying schools are actually saving the government money. According to a quick Google there are some 620 000 children in private education in the U.K. If all of them, or even a big chunk, suddenly needed to be state educated how are the government going to provide this?

This. I can't see how its justified taxing them as charities, but do sympathise with those for whom a tax change would mean making their kids change schools from one they are settled in.

Well, I do.

Ok, you seem like a dictator.

Why can't people live and let live? Concentrate on their own jobs, careers and leave other people alone.

Life is inherently unfair! I had an utterly shit upbringing and I'm damned if my sons will have the same.

Education isn't a luxury. Whilst I think that state schools should be better resourced, and I'm not keen on educational inequality, I don't think parents of private school kids should be paying tax on top of fees. They've already paid twice as it is.

I send my son to a private school. It saves the state about £6k a year that it would otherwise have to spend on his education. I'm not clear why I should pay VAT on top of saving the taxpayers £6k per year already?

Of course you have more money to spare. Obviously enough to pay for the extras needed with private education.

I think it'd have an impact making fees unaffordable for some families, who would then need to transfer to government funded education - surely it would put more pressure on the system? It'd be interesting to see the workings behind how much the 20% would raise vs who would need to swap to government funded education.

I guess it’s because it’s saving the government £1000s per child not having to fund their state school places.

I wonder how the economics would play out if VAT was added to school fees. Whether the extra 20% in VAT would be sufficient to fund all the extra state school places that would be needed.

I agree that not all parents who use private schools have money to burn. There are actually a vast number of private SEN school that are all funded by the local authority and grant places to students with EHCPs. I think that needs remembering that actually it’s not just the “rich” that use private.
but also, I don’t see a problem with them charging VAT. But maybe education supplies and providers should be charged a lower rate such as 5% as opposed to 20%.

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.

After all, if improving state education was a priority, no one would "need" private schools.

Not education. Private education.

They wouldn't be able to. The school places aren't there for them as the private school numbers are taken into account.

'Rich' people don't have a monopoly on this. We all pay for things that are for the common good which we don't necessarily use.