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!

Also if the school has to charge vat to parents, they'll also be claiming it back on their own purchases? So any building work they get done, and supplies etc? How does that impact things?

If the businesses providing it pay tax on the income they make from it sure. Although in an ideal world, no, because it's a bit grotesque when you think about it if life-saving treatment is allocated based on your ability to pay for it (as if the life of someone less wealthy is less worthy).

"Parents have to work hard to send children to private schools"

Well they'll need to work a bit harder then to pay tax on the luxury. The tax can be directed into the state system, ergo paying for places to be available for those who can no longer afford private.

Many many people who can afford private opt for state.

Out of interest where do the children of people who can't afford to pay that go?

You all want more kids in the overburdened state system?

Your classes go from 30-35/40 because labour will have to find a place for these children that no longer go to private school. The 6k per year that comes out of our tax for education will then be used to teach our child which will mean however many kids who currently go to private school x£6k will be taken out of the governments coffers.

And we'll be quids in because even paying the tutors and horse riding and tennis lessons we'll be materially better off than when we were paying school fees.

Oh plus when those houses near the best schools come up for sale we'll have been saving our money we've saved in school fees and will snap them up meaning your kids won't get in.

This is just a stupid I'll thought out idea to appeal to the disgruntled masses.

Yes, exactly! Are people really that stupid that they think the only reason anyone could ever object to private school is because they can't afford it themselves and are jealous? Or is that just what they tell themselves?

Because they have lots more than everyone else. That's sort of the definition of 'wealthy'.

Although education isn't a luxury, private education, with smaller class sizes, more extracurricular stuff, nicer food etc, is.

If more of the richer, more influential parents ended up having to send their children to state schools, the state schools would have more pressure to improve and also more resources.

I hope all the people sneering at private schools always check the credentials of any teacher, doctor, surgeon, lawyer, dentist etc they use, to check they were state educated.
Otherwise they could be seen to be benefiting from private schooling.

I like the ideology, but...

The most expensive private schools (40k per year) are much more elitist than they used to be, with fees outstripping salary increases over the past 30 years. VAT would just make them even more elitist. More and more students would end up coming from overseas, while the state sector would be flooded with new applications it couldn't cope with.
Overall, I can't see how it would be a net gain for public finances. Any VAT gained (and more) would have to be spent to increase places in state education. That might sound great, but there is already a tiered system within the state sector. Wealthier families buy more expensive houses to be in the catchment of the best schools, therefore pricing out less wealthy families. This will be exacerbated if families move from private to state education - using their savings on school fees to ensure they get into the best state schools.

For a VAT policy to work it would have to be brought in extremely slowly to give schools and families time to plan.

But it’s surely impossible to deny that you must have had loads of money (compared to the average family) in the first place for private schools to have even been a realistic option for your family.
Not necessarily. Not all private schools are Eton. The average household takes home £31,400 after tax. Fees for secondary at a school local to me are £12k/year. This isn't an expensive area to live, so it's not inconceivable that a family with only one child could manage to pay the fees. Add another £2.4k though and that may push things too far.

Yep. And they will ensure they buy a house in the catchment of the best. Still gaming the system, just in a different way.

There's all sorts in private schools from ultra rich to parents scraping and scaling down their life so they could send their children private. There's also families with normal income where they have grandparents to help or inheritance. Those that are privately educated don't use state education putting further strains on the education system despite their parents paying tax

That argument doesn't wash. Tax is a collective matter and has no bearing on whether you use the services or not. I have never used a school in the last 47 years - should I get my tax back? I haven't used a library - I'd like my money back on that too. I haven't used Children's services or adult services - i want my money back.

You don't get to argue that you don't want to use something, so it's fair enough that you shouldn't be taxed on purchasing an alternative. Yes, you have paid tax for the state system. You are entitled to use it. If you don't then that is your choice or your good fortune.

I think the VAT that is not paid is fairly neatly offset by the money saved by the state on not having to educate those 620,000 children.

Over 15% of children at private schools have special educational needs and the data suggests that increasing numbers of parents have made a difficult financial choice to go private because they know their children won't get the support they need at a state school. By contrast, kids with SEN at state are dropping, which suggests they're either going private in despair, or not being diagnosed any more (or a bit of both). Neither answer is particularly encouraging.

www.schoolmanagementplus.com/inclusion/matt-hancock-calls-for-dyslexia-screening-in-primary-schools/

Do state schools across the UK actually have the facilities to take on an influx of kids from the private sector - including a slightly disproportionately high number with special educational needs? Kids with autism who are in a small private school setting now and thriving, but who will fall apart in a bustling large state school? Kids with ADHD, dyslexia and all the other things that need smaller class sizes?

I do take the point that if more affluent and ambitious parents were funnelled towards the state system instead of being able to buy their way out, it MIGHT uplift the state standards/budget/outcomes, but I think it would put many local schools under a lot of pressure to suddenly have to accommodate hundreds more local children.

I do feel that the value of the VAT is offset by not taking a state place, but if VAT MUST be introduced, it should be phased in so that borderline parents (who represent the VAST majority of parents that I know who send their children private) have time to adjust, especially at points along the way where teens have chosen A-Level subjects that their local state school might not be able to accommodate - and the state schools to find the places for them.

Also... show me a head teacher in the state sector who is blissfully happy with her budget and is excited about taking on more teachers next year to offer a wider range of subjects for A Level, and get her class sizes down to 20 for Year 7. Who has all the money she needs for sport, art, music, and SEN. And to repair that hole in the roof and fix the toilets without having to choose between basic repairs and TA's.

That's why people who can, go private. If the Labour government actually funds education well enough to provide schools with the budget they NEED, you'd find more parents switching back to state with great relief, without needing to be "punished" with VAT.

It’s a luxury - and definitely should not have charity status!

We will use the private system for secondary as I dont see it as more immoral than paying an extra 100k for a house in the best school catchment. We are pretty comfortable but fees will be a massive squeeze. However, I'm more than happy to pay extra tax in general and believe in excellent public services. If the state provision was better we wouldnt need to use the private system and it will only get better with more tax revenue under a labour government.

If every overprivileged hedge fund manager, energy boss and MP suddenly had to send their child to state school, funding to vastly improve those state schools would be in place faster than you could blink.

The entire premise behind some posts here is completely wrong. The idea that 'well I pay tax but don't use a state school place...so I should not have to pay tax on purchasing a service to get my child a significant advantage over their peers' is ridiculous.

That's not how tax works, or should work.

I am (relatively) young, and healthy. I still pay for the NHS. I live in a pretty safe area and have never needed to contact the police. I don't get to avoid tax on security products for my home. People without children also don't take up spaces in state schools, but don't expect to avoid taxes on other things. I've never been unemployed and never needed universal credit or income support.

We pay tax because of the societal benefits derived from the services they fund - not as some sort of transactional system where if I pay £x in tax, I have a right to £x in services back.

And non-parents, or parents whose kids attend private schools, will still derive the benefits of a state funded education system. Because it may well be that the doctors treating them in the future, or the entrepreneurs creating jobs they need, or tax revenue that will pay their state pensions etc will have been educated in state schools.

So if a parent sends their child to private school, they are doing that for one reason and one reason alone (apart from where specialist education is needed due to SEN etc) and that is to derive an advantage for their child. That's fair enough - but I don't see why they should expect for that service not to be subject to VAT in the same way as any other services would be.

Stripping private schools of their charitable status is a ridiculous idea. Do people not realise that each child in private school is one less for the state to fund? Not everyone who sends their kid to s private school is mega rich, some prioritise education over holidays, nice cars etc because some state schools are dreadful. Others move to more expensive areas because they often have better state schools......if you have the means to do that then it's not really that different to sending your kid to a private school.

My kids are currently in good state schools burn I'm all for private schools. If you can afford it why would you not send your kid to the best school possible?

Yes private primary DD went to is currently £615 a month (was £500 ish when she went) baby/toddler childcare costs more. It also included wrap around care, prep for 11 plus and 2 weeks extra hols so could go away in state term time saving £££.
School DD went to and local small private secondary cater a lot for children with quirks or additional needs. Private isn’t all Eton!
My DD had a physical disability but qualified for no additional help in state primary - was told she would ‘manage’

This is a specialist SEN school. Not at all comparable to mainstream schools. The reason the places are funded is because SEN provision is so crap they have to outsource to private providers.

Private does not necessarily equal better. I refer you to our Eton educated former PM, who could barely string a coherent sentence together.

Many private schools already are businesses not charities,

It wouldnt necessarily be a full 20% rise either, because the business can start to reclaim vat on certain capital costs, overheads too so make savings in that way.

I'm more worried about the knock on effect that education is seen as a charitable purpose and what would this mean.

If they add 20% to school fees, they'll simply remove bursaries, which most private schools support. Again it'll be the poor that lose out.
Very short sighted of the labour party.