Kier starmer! He hates strivers!

[Bucketheadbucketbum]

He wants to introduce a policy to put up the cost of school fees 10 to 15%. This is a tax on hard-working parents! We slave away cutting cots everywhere living hand to mouth to try and improve our childrens future . Live in an average house average area 1 shit car no holidays work like a dog to get our kids through. We are easing the burden on the state system by choosing independent schools. We're not sending them to Eton paid by our trust fund! Why does he want to punish strivers! Tax the energy companies! So disappointed. We need a new political party. What's the point in trying to better your future.

@Ritasueandbobtoo9 can you provide the evidence that fewer private schools directly affect the standard of state schools in the area?

Perhaps if the rich didn't have the option to buy themselves an elite education, more money would be invested in the kind of resources your son needs.

I mean if Jacob Rees mogg sent his kids to a state school, he might actually give a fig about state education.

Just leave the UK! It's not going to be a nice place to live for some time! You won't regret it.

I've gone and have no short term intent to come back.

@AhNowTed I work in a charity and it has a multi million pound marketing budget.

Yes but private schools are NOT charities. That's the point.

@AhNowTed

I refer to my previous posts. Why is it more ridiculous than the taxpayer subsidising the cost of middle class parents gaming grammar schools so as to get a private school education for free.

One third of all private school children have financial assistance. All of them have been removed from the state sector meaning that the taxes their parents contribute towards education can be used for other people. A portion of their fees also goes into providing bursaries and scholarships for those who need it. Unlike in the grammar system, where the majority of parents want and could afford private but instead choose to spend their money on (houses in the catchment) prep schools and tutoring their own kids in order to get the govt to pay for secondary instead, meaning that they take all the state resources they can and the money they spend benefits no one but their own children and their own pocket.

Personally I think it’s outrageous we aren’t having a conversation about that at the same time.

@Dorisbonson yes that's exactly our plan. So disillusioned and pessimistic about the future of the UK and our children.

Re leaving U.K. All this wrecking institutions is depressing me too. Politics of envy is going to drive people away

It's not abolishing anything. It's removing tax payer support for better off people buying a luxury service. If you're really a teacher you should be dedicated to all children having the advantages you've been able to buy for your own.

Why is it more ridiculous than the taxpayer subsidising the cost of middle class parents gaming grammar schools so as to get a private school education for free.

Plenty of people are against grammar schools as well. I'd happily get rid of them, along with the charitable status for most private schools.

@AhNowTed
Private schools however are businesses

Please define business, as I asked before - I’m not the expert in tax law that everyone else seems to be. Perhaps I missed that module at school. And tax is exactly what this thread is about.

Private education is a luxury good/service. These are usually taxed.

@Lightowl

I agree with you about grammar schools. I'd abolish them as well.

If the rich, the establishment and the powerful had to send their kids to a state school, they might give a stuff about state education.

Same with the NHS.

"Why are private schools, in which ONE THIRD of kids have some sort of financial assistance in the form of bursary or scholarship,"

Importantly, while private schools may be proud of their scholarship provision, most provide no data on the demographic profiles of recipient students, making it impossible to evaluate the extent to which these benefit less well-off families. And given the high levels of fees, most students in receipt of means-tested fee remissions will still require very substantial family contributions.
For instance, St Paul’s offers fee assistance to families with an annual household income of less than £120,000, which can arguably be justified when the definition of “modest means” is being unable to afford fees of around £27,000 a year out of post-tax income.

theconversation.com/amp/the-public-cost-of-private-schools-rising-fees-and-luxury-facilities-raise-questions-about-charitable-status-182060

It's been pretty unpleasant for most of us since 2010. Good see the better off will flounce away if one of their luxury services begins to be taxed fairly. If your children can't cope in a regular school, probably best if we don't make them mix with our more resilient and intelligent kids. Nothing is stopping you leaving.

Love this ‘Typical private school myth that children are held back at state schools’

Honestly from my experience in this my DC goes to state and gets 95% in Maths. Her friends ho to private and get 24%. At parties the private kid meets other boys from private that blatantly pester her for sex because they are entitled brats. In teaching my kids to preserve money, self respect and know how lucky they are in their massive state school I am bringing up fantastic adults with self agency and a strong sense of self. I work less, check in on their day, work on their home work and love them to the moon and back. There’s a foundation for you. Money does not equal love.

Includes us.

Here’s the problem - in a world where no one wants you to do well because privelege, yet at the same time the govt is placing ever greater responsibility on people to look after themselves because cost (see population ageing)… at what point will people realise they’ve been conned by politics of envy into thinking that doing well makes them a bad person… and that when push comes to shove they haven’t earned enough to look after themselves?

It’s a serious question guys. The govt is going to do less and less for 99% of people in this country in the next 50 year, no matter what party runs it. And most people kid themselves that everyone else is in the 99% but not them and haven’t realised we are increasingly on our own. Shall I start another thread on it??

I have posted from a state school parent perspective. I don’t want this as it’s hard enough to get in as it is. I’m sure you’ll rejoice when the better off leave. Your increased tax burden will be awaiting.

I don't entirely disagree on the principle behind the policy, but actually think it's poorly thought through and yet another way that Labour (much like the conservatives as well) are happy to bash middle income families rather than doing something meaningful about the vast amounts of wealth at the top.

The people sending their children to the likes of Eton, Winchester and other expensive schools that seem to churn out the old boys' network types are not going to be affected by this as they can still pay whatever hike in fees there are. They're not going to start caring about the state system .
The families with comfortable but middle income who have made a conscious decision to cut back their lifestyle so their child can have an education that isn't plagued by overworked teachers doing parenting/social work/psychological interventions/therapy/feeding the children/filling in endless paperwork/getting nowhere when they are trying to deal with bullying are the ones most affected and they'll end up putting their children back into the state sector.
The second group will affect the state sector most and where are all these places going to come from?

Any government needs to start looking at the root cause of problems in schools before trying to whip up and us Vs them narrative. But they won't do that because it would mean having to accept that state schools will continue to struggle unless something is done about SEN/EHCP process/CAMHS/children's centres/social work so schools can get on with teaching.

I'd be happy to see independent schools lose their charitable status in the long run, but think it comes AFTER closing tax avoidance loopholes, AFTER taxing energy companies on huge profits, AFTER charging more tax on the very wealthy.

interested in this comment regarding tutors, swimming lessons etc. In the past our DC have done some tennis lessons in school holidays and DH complains every time that he doesn't think there should be VAT on kids sport but its listed on the payment.
sorry totally off topic on private school!

OP you opened with a fairly robust post so don't be too overwhelmed by forceful replies in disagreement.

Revenue needs to be raised. The charitable status exemption has been raised as an issue for years. If Starmer is willing to do something about it then I'm pleased.

Personally I believe in equality of opportunity for all children. Far from it being a race to the bottom, I want every child to have the chance to rise to the top. The sooner every child has that then the better. I'm a very high earner by the way but don't pay for my children's education.

I'd be happy to see independent schools lose their charitable status in the long run, but think it comes AFTER closing tax avoidance loopholes, AFTER taxing energy companies on huge profits, AFTER charging more tax on the very wealthy

agree

annoyed I have to do school run now - super interesting thread!!

@NashvilleQueen
I'm a very high earner by the way but don't pay for my children's education

I bet you pay for private health insurance.

Inference more than presumption. Of are, of course, welcome to clarify!

I believe universities also have charitable status. Shouldn't they be included in this Labour policy?