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 have kids at preps. VAT should definitely be added. They should not be charities.

Yet another stupid Labour policy.
A quick google suggests that average yearly costs for a primary aged pupil as a day pupil would be £15k, so VAT at 20% would bring in £3k tax.
I live in the lowest funded authority and funding for primary school pupils five years ago was about £3.8k.
So if all these parents removed their children from private education and put them in state schools it would end up costing the government more money.

Or just don't believe in private education?

Your figures are nonsense.

You're claiming class sizes will rise from 30-35 to 40. Ridiculous.

Average class sizes in state schools is about 23, not 30-35.

Even the Independent Schools Council (with an obvious vested interest) claims that Labour's policy would result in about 90,000 privately educated students moving to the state system. That would amount to a roughly 0.8% increase in state pupil numbers - or an average increase in class sizes from 23 to 23.2.

Our tax goes on a bunch of stuff we don’t use. Where do you draw the line?

Torn to be honest.

Private school is essentially a luxury BUT

it's education, so think it should be VAT free

So what if they have more than everyone else? Why does that mean you should have it? Do you think everyone should be given the same wage then, no matter what their job is?

No.

What is being proposed is removing private schools' exemption from paying VAT on their purchases of goods and service

Incorrect. Private schools pay VAT on goods and services.

chariti are not businesses though- they effectively have an asset lock so can’t distribute profits and are non profit making.

You’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s so poorly thought out and would backfire.

And given That the government often waste money there’s no evidence that the money gained from a new VAT charge would go into the state schools.

And don’t forget all the staff employed by private schools.

Imo, some of those who get on their high horse about private education while admitting (boasting?) they earn 150k should think about the fact they have "bought" a good school because they can afford to live in a nice catchment area. Where is the fairness in that?

If all the parents of all the children in private education (that can vote) actively voted against Labour, it probably wouldn't make much difference to the outcome. That's how minorities work.

If a business pays VAT on goods and services it purchases it can recover all the VAT it pays as long as it itself is VAT registered. If the business turnover is more than £85,000 it has to register but all businesses can opt to register.

Most private schools are registered charities. A charity can't register for VAT so it can't reclaim VAT on anything it buys which is vatable.

But they're not all going to remove their child to the state system, are they?

Even the Independent Schools Council - who have every reason to overegg the pudding in terms of how many parents would remove children from private schools - claim that only 17% of private pupils (about 90,000) would be moved into the state system.

Meanwhile 83% of pupils would remain, with their parents paying VAT which can then be used to (a) cover the increased demand of the 17%; and (b) improve standards and provisions in the state sector.

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.

Translation: Don’t argue, plebs, you’ll only make it worse for yourselves

If parents can't afford it then it's more
Burden on the state schools which I bet they won't get money for. So I don't support the policy.

However I am
Voting Labour next election because of the nhs.

Unless truss actually is right which I doubt.

Yes, it should be.

Its no good being ideological. We have to deal with the reality.

It is true though. It will be private schools, grammar schools or buying property near the best schools.

Your private school sounds a bit shit op and that they need to do some diplomacy courses and indeed on how best to manage their business

I would be floored if my children’s private school “just asked” for my thoughts re a significant financial

I agree. Private education does not make you a better person, it may make your more competitive. We have good example of private educated Tory politicians in front of us.

This isn't an issue that will stop me voting Labour.

If Labour do remove schools charitable status and fees increase 20% we will find this unaffordable and would have to remove ours.

We would also sell our house and buy (a much smaller flat) in the catchment of our local excellent comprehensive.

I do think this policy would push up house prices in areas with excellent schools, which are already unaffordable for most where we are. I am not sure that it woukd really reduce inequality.

Would you then need to scrap PTAs/donations to schools? Lots of the excellent comprehensive schools in our area receive huge financial support via parental donations. Or parents offering their time.

Personally I think a better way of reducing inequality is raising taxes (to levels similar to Nordic countries) and using this to better fund state schools.

This! The city I’m from there are state schools in very affluent areas which outperform the state schools which actually have a more socio-economically diverse population since they have bursaries.

There are sooo many ways high earners who don’t necessarily use private schools use their money in other ways to buy advantages for their children, but then focus on the unfairness of private schools to make themselves feel a bit less guilty.

I don't see private school as a luxury.
It's a necessity for my neuro diverse child. She needs the small class sizes. It's also proven that girls achieve better in single sex schools which the state resolved to try and abolish over the last couple of decades.

I'm a single/lone parent with no other income or support, and yes I have a decent career, but I definitely don't have money to burn.

An additional 20% when I'm saving the state money isn't defendable.