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.

@Bucketheadbucketbum

It's not a race to the bottom. I'm not passing any comment on others situations. I'm just saying this is a wildly disruptive policy that punishes people. We should be helping not punishing.
What’s the punishment?'

Good question - is it having to send your children to the same schools to mix with the riff raff like our children??

It is not Starmer's doing that the school converted. His own parents never paid any fees.

Get a grip. You are going to be roasted on here.
Private schools should not be seen as charities. They need to start paying VAT.

The policy is individiuals pay full price instead of me subsidising their personal choices... which is not a punishment.

The schools are businesses.

If they want to reduce the fees by 10-15% to assist, they can.

And I can't find the post where someone said a local private school, because they're a charity, have clubs and sports for kids that aren't educated there and will stop them.

They won't. And they won't stop the bursaries either. Because as a business you can use charitable donations / work as a tax write off. So they can continue with their 'charitable' actions and use them against their tax.

I'm not convinced that all Conservatives are against the proposal. They might oppose Labour because of politics but not necessarily reject the argument around private schools retaining charitable status.

Certainly Michael Gove was making similar arguments in 2017 -

Private school fees are VAT-exempt. That tax advantage allows the wealthiest in this country, indeed the very wealthiest in the globe, to buy a prestige service that secures their children a permanent positional edge in society at an effective 20 per cent discount.
How can this be justified? I ask the question in genuine, honest inquiry. If Times readers can tell me why we should continue to provide such egregious state support to the already wealthy so that they might buy advantage for their own children, I would be fascinated.

Private schools have facilities, and provide opportunities, most state school students could scarcely envisage. And which most five-star hotels would struggle to provide.
Millfield has an equestrian centre and clay pigeon shooting, two recording studios and a 350-seater concert hall. Stowe also has an equestrian centre, a golf course and its own school nightclub — “kitted out from the remnants of Crazy Larry’s in London”. Charterhouse has its own stables, golf course and tennis, squash, racquets and fives courts.
The fees for these schools are all more than £30,000 per year, per pupil. Well above the average annual salary of most Britons. They are out of reach for all save the very wealthiest, or most fortunate. And yet they are all registered charities with huge tax exemptions.

And the money we raise from ending the tax advantages enjoyed by private schools could be redeployed to help the most vulnerable children of all — those taken into care. We could increase the amount spent on their education through the pupil premium. We could expand Frontline, the scheme that recruits the most talented Russell Group graduates to become social workers supporting these children. And we could abolish employer national insurance contributions for care leavers, providing businesses with a powerful incentive to look out for, recruit and support those in our society most in need.
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/put-vat-on-school-fees-and-soak-the-rich-fmpjv2zd9

@Henuinequest
Where I live an average 3 bed terrace in the catchment for the outstanding comp would cost you £1mil+. We couldn't afford that so we have sent ours private and live in a slightly cheaper area out of catchment.
With our mortgage and everything else going up I'm not sure that we could absorb a 15% increase on fees.
One of my children has ASD and I'm not sure would thrive in our local comp, so if we can't afford the fees any more I will be homeschooling him. Thus loosing the government all of the tax that I currently pay.

I dont agree with this policy as I don't think it makes economic sense, however, I will still vote Labour.

Bring back the tripartite system where children are directed to the type of education they’re best suited to, but perhaps at 13 rather than 11.

The problem with the 11+ is the pass/fail idea.

If it was a 3 way split, then there would be no pass/fail, but a correct directioning based on children’s talents.

‘local private school, because they're a charity, have clubs and sports for kids that aren't educated there and will stop them.’

Our local private schools - there are a LOT of them- RENT out their facilities. Like the pool
or the tennis courts or the 3G or the use of the grounds to summer clubs.
Not ONE of them will let you do that for free. I know because I actually tried to get one of them to let us use a facility for a day for an actually charity thing for kids from low socio-economic backgrounds.
They we’re having NONE of it. They didn’t just want a nominal fee for having a grounds person or what we there, they wanted £££.

one day day they’d consider it if they could use photos on their SM but we couldn’t let them as too many kids were from the local womens shelter or had other issues that meant we didn’t want their pics in the local paper or online.
so it was a no as they school wouldn’t get the free press

So no-one will miss out as schools either don’t share facilities with the plebs or do for the tax breaks or kudos they’d still get

I live near Muswell hill. £2 million was an example of a particularly expensive road right next to the school and it's not just because of the state school, it's because it's in an affluent part of London. However the state school being there means people fight to live within 0.5 miles of the school so that means the house prices are very high even for London standards. But what I meant from my example is that rich people can spend just as much sending their kids to state as they can on private. Perhaps even more. Perhaps yes it's a better investment, but that's not the point. The point is rich people would still spend money on education; but instead of school fees, it's on a property (which is also a product all of us consume).

Also had another example of someone who bought a flat for 350k as a second home, she was a VP at a bank working in middle office so that's not super unattainable. She could afford private fees for one but told me she decided not to because she could sell her flat once her child got in while school fees are an ongoing commitment. Expect more of such people in future.

Also most private schools which are worth the fees are selective. Many rich people may have kids who do not test well. The lady who bought her second home for 350k told me she did it because she didn't want to put her child through eleven plus. So good comprehensive is the kinder option. It is better than most non selective privates.

This won't affect the likes of Eton in the slightest. They do a great deal to justify their charity status and are very well endowed. They'll probably become more exclusive and share their resources less as a result.

The schools that will be affected are those with less endowment to fall back on. The girls' schools, for example, that do not have centuries of funds built up.
How typical of the Labour bros to limit girls' chances even further than they are already!

And what about the private schools for children with additional needs? This bright idea of Labour's will cost far more than they save if they're planning to bring them all into a mainstream education that can't cope with them.

jigsawschool.co.uk
meathschool.org.uk
morehouseschool.co.uk
treloar.org.uk
youngfoundations.com/service/mortimer-house-school

None of the many people I know sending their kids to independent schools are WC or nurses or window cleaners or whatever 'strivers'

Well, I have come across several nurses who pay school fees, quite a few teachers, a few builders, a police officer, a taxi driver - in addition to the usual lawyers, doctors and dentists etc.

Business innit!

Anyone swallowing this charity bullshit, I have a bridge to sell.

Labour limiting girls chances - that is a fucking REACH.

Yes, there are definitely a few nurses at our school.

It’s a shit idea, like most labour policies headline grabbing to make people think they’re for the people. It’s popular, its divide and conquer.

However, once private schools become more expensive less will go, bursaries that enable less well off children to attend will become rarer. This will probably cost the state school sector more than it raises.

it’s a generic problem in labour, their fiscal policies generally work on the basis that behaviour won’t be impacted by change.

I actually am not a big fan of private education but that’s by the by.

Usually married to surgeons though.

The kids who were already attending when the school changed DID MOT have to pay the fees. Because most of them would have had to leave

By that logic, my DC who are already at a school when the VAT status changes, won't have to pay it. Because they would have to leave. Why couldn't his parents just cough up following the change, like current private school parents are going to be expected to?

We moved our girls after we discovered they were not only in the same class as Kerry Katonas kids but the local drugdealer king pin gangster.

Red meat for voters. It’s popular but pants.

The schools that will be affected are those with less endowment to fall back on. The girls' schools, for example, that do not have centuries of funds built up.
How typical of the Labour bros to limit girls' chances even further than they are already!

Tony Blair sent his daughter to a Catholic Girls' school of course, and Keir Starmer lives near a well known London Girls' School.

Don't you mean the Tory fiscal disasters like ERM, Austerity, Austerity 2.0 and Liz Truss?

Want a luxury service, like private education? pay VAT on it, same as if you wanted a new but unnecessary new kitchen.

No one will quit a private school because fees go up a small amount.

it’s a generic problem in labour, their fiscal policies generally work on the basis that behaviour won’t be impacted by change.

I actually am not a big fan of private education but that’s by the by.
That's how I feel about it.
I've worked in the state system my entire teaching career and want it to be successful more than anything, but don't think that the state system will be improved by getting the working and middle classes fighting each other over superficial policies that don't address the real problems.

The major issue for state education is 10+ years of social policies that have deliberately and actively harmed societies and removed access to a lot of services around children and families.