Do you think labour will actually implement 20% vat on school fees?

[labpit]

We have two in Year 7 and year 10 and I am not sure what we will do if this happens. It is a certainty do you think?

This is why Lab will need to produce the hard facts and figures of their policy.

However, as pointed out early, the IFS say the numbers moving back to the state sector will be very small.

One could argue that the parents of former children in the PS, will be the sorts of parents that will drive up standards in their local schools.

Yep. This is more unsavoury. My sympathy goes towards those impacted not those willing it on

That is simply not the case. No one wants any child’s education interrupted. My point is that;

1. this is just a fair tax that I’d be happy to pay. Because it’s FAIR in an unfair system.
2. the risk of hoards of privately educated children being thrown unceremoniously out of school at a crucial time in their life is minuscule to negligent. Firstly the numbers of children in private education is small. The numbers that then can’t easily afford the extra are even smaller and the numbers that can’t find someway to find the extra even smaller. Most will be able to find savings or earn more.

I haven’t seen anyone gloating. I have empathised that I know it is a worrying thought. My point is that it’’s irrational. Your language is irrational.

What is ‘repugnant’ is the most privileged in society wringing their hands over a tiny tiny change towards a slightly fairer society that the vast majority can easily afford when there are some families that can barely afford food. I say this as someone with a cleaner, who can pay bills and did choose private school for a while, so one of the privileged few. Not wealthy but comfortable.

If you are genuinely concerned about your children’s education then of course that’s not easy but I think you are blowing this out of proportion.

Oh and my DC moved from private to state due to a house move and didn’t get bullied for being ‘posh’.

Yes. Just not usually to the privileged few. They are usually protected so I guess it’s scary when that possibility suddenly comes knocking at your door.

Hopefully. It's ridiculous they are given charitable status.

Doubt it’ll be quick / immediate due to the highrisk of pressure on state places if more families than estimated don’t choose private at key points (eg year 7) or move their DC.

The imposition of VAT on school fees only serves to punish the squeezed middle. The super wealthy will hoover up all the private school places, increasing inequality, because the addition of VAT is inconsequential to them.

Meanwhile, parents who forgo holidays, share one car, don’t enrol their children for extras and buy second hand or oversized uniform for kids to grow into, all so they can gather the money for fees, will be forced to remove their children from the private sector.

If you live in a metropolitan area, you will likely have good state provision to choose from. In the rural area I live in, local state schools can only be described as dire, both in terms of academic results and bullying/behavioural issues. There are two good “state” schools in the county, and one is in fact a grammar. Both are oversubscribed, the grammar is over an hour away, and the state school has a tiny catchment area which means, at a 30 minute drive, we would not be eligible. Private education is therefore something we are considering for when we do have children.

Imposing VAT won’t cause private schools to crumble, which I often sense is the gleeful undertone from those in support. I expect it will only serve to widen inequality, and not provide the uplift to state schools that Labour promises.

I’m all for Labour winning the next election, but I don’t support this policy.

I dread the bullying of these children when moving to state schools. Poor kids and parents. What an embarrassment that the U.K. is charging tax for education. Labour is the worse and people would suffer with more inequality poor state supported vs mega rich.

I'm not sure there'll be high numbers leaving private for state, at least not at secondary level - maybe more so at primary.

But I think there will be a lot fewer who chose to start at private, or move when transitioning from primary to secondary and secondary to 6th form.

This would place a lot more pressure on places in those years.

And if a school struggles to fill its classes in reception and year 7 (especially if combined with slightly lower numbers in other years) it could become unviable reasonably quickly and have to close - which would mean a whole load of pupils suddenly having to be found state places.

100% agree, unfortunately it's an effective strategy.

It won’t bring any money in. Quite apart from any children who move schools due to not being able to afford to pay the fees, the IFS made zero acknowledgement of the fact that if families cut back on other areas (for example cleaners, holidays, home improvements, dipping into savings etc) that money in itself creates tax revenue for the builder, the cleaner, on interest from those savings for the taxpayer etc.

so there won’t be any more money to fund the things labour are saying it will. A fairly pointless policy if it’s revenue raising. Their rationale for it is revenue raising. If they acknowledged that it won’t raise any money and they just want to make it classed as luxury that would be far more honest. Wonder why they aren’t doing that?

Thats quite an emotive list you ve written, without a shred of evidence any of it will happen.

We are talking about fees on average (according to posters on here) going up from less than 15k per year to 17 to 18k p.a.

That can easily be afforded by not going on this winters school ski trip.

How have these parents managed over the last 10 years that has seen fees vastly out strip inflation yet numbers in the private sector have gone UP.

Glad that's the case, equally I did move and was bullied. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it won't. That's a side issue compared to disruption for pupils part way through GCSEs etc

@Absolutely45 - you are missing @edwinbear point which is a number of private schools will fold due to the policy probably if 20 per cent of cohort withdraw due to it they can’t survive so the remaining 80 per cent end up needing places. In some areas they will just go to the remaining private schools but in remote areas this may not be possible.

The effect of 20 VAT is cumulative. So if the underlying fees go up 3 per cent a year it quickly goes through the roof. So many will withdraw because they have done their budgets based on no VAT and their salaries won’t go up 23 per cent a year. So they are screwed.

I am not sure why Labour would interfere at the point when the smaller private schools are folding anyway to then forever get the blame for it. Doesn’t make sense to me.
The private schools themselves should be coming up with some plan too to offer places to each other and communicate effectively. Not sure that is allowed though because years ago some of them were done for fee rigging.

It's not 7% of children in private schools - that's just the stats for primary. By 6th form, it's more like 18%. In some areas, it may be double that.

The impact of VAT would vary massively across the U.K. In some areas, you have to drive miles to even find an independent school and even then, the school could be money for old rope, But, in London, the state schools are absolutely rammed. In some areas, about 50% are in private education - largely because of the dearth of state schools and they can't get a place in a reasonably local one anyway, but also because many of the private schools are excellent. So VAT on independent schools could well have a detrimental impact on already oversubscribed, underfunded state schools. Of course, the super-rich won't be affected. But I doubt any govt will actually plough any money gained from VAT back into the state school sector. Where are the extra school places in London going to come from? It's a nightmare as it is. Also, those who can, will just move into catchment areas with the excellent state schools. Same old, same old. No difference basically.

I honestly think if you have a child who is about to start gcses or a levels, then it is probably best to start saving a small amount each day in preperation for this. Also look at whether you can get an overdraft or loan to look at spreading the cost of the extra VAT over 3 years.

Remember most schools have a terms notice so if vat means you have to pull your child out, you need to weigh up pretty soon the liklihood of this happening by Novemeber and look at state schools to start their gcses in sept 2024.

I also think most schools would look at retaining their year 11s and probably year 10s in this scenario as they are very unlikely to refill the places part way through a course and their year 7 will possibly be a low entry year due to the VAT. 80% of the fee might be a gamble they take or meet you halfway as remember many parents will afford it. They wont all be thrown over the edge by 20% increase on one final year of education.

The biggest risk to pupils is the school just not being viable. This already happens due to cost of living crisis. Its very sad. Whitgift, loreto, belmont are a few off the top of my head that closed recently.

Ah well some areas of the country get a huge amount less of funding per child than in London and the South East is hugely over represented in the best unis and jobs so not sure I’ll worry about the fallout on London just yet. It might level the playing field. Don’t notice many in the private sector or in London demanding equality for less well funded areas of the country or for the state sector as a whole.

Absolutely. But my point is it’s not a foregone conclusion. And it’s not a reason to avoid a tax that begins, in a small way, to make society more fair.

And can we quit with the “ squeezed middle” being impacted by this. It’s the rich.

The wealthy will thrive and get pushed up higher

There won’t be much raised, in fact pp say they don’t care if nothing is raised so even the pro this policy can see there could be nothing

People and dc will be impacted though, so it’s just a gimmick to make people feel something is changing, I mean it is but mostly negative

@Trappedandunhappy no, but there are many other reasons why it is a vindictive measure. I don't mind paying more income tax to help fund state education - I do feel that as as a family of a nurse and mid ranking civil servant it is punitive to target parents like us - what's worse is that ultimately the children will suffer.

Starmer, who went to a private school on a bursary was wittering on at how important his children's GCSE years were and how he hoped his election to PM didn't impact them. Cretin.

I think it’s worrying. I’ll be voting labour (reluctantly) and if their best and most consistent flagship policy is a private school tax which will raise less than 1% of the budget for education, it goes to show how tight money really is and how hard it will be to raise.

If ‘taxing the rich’ or ending nondoms would raise the sort of money that would transform the country in the way everyone believes here, why aren’t they just doing that, straight from the source? Shouldn’t it be as simple as ‘we’re taxing the big corporations. Now here is the cash for all our public services’? If not, why not?

It is sad. You are right. Some families lives might get disrupted. But I feel more sad about the kids I work with that just don’t stand a chance a happy healthy life. There are swathes and swathes of them. It’s so hard to see a future for them that has any hope of even basic good health.

The inequality in this country is currently at unacceptable levels. We have to start addressing it for all our sakes (higher inequality leads to higher crime and worse mental health) and this is one small step to address something that was inherently unfair.

Some, already privileged children, may lose out to a degree (but will be cushioned by the fact their parents will suddenly be better off overall and can pay for extra curricular activities and tutors and therapists etc), but there are already masses of children being born into an unfair system that makes it almost impossible that they can make a better life for themselves.

It has to change and this is one small step towards that change.

London is tricky because secondary ages, I think year 7/8 and above, are still really high birth years, but below that, especially below current Year 2, they are really worried about the very low birth rate. So on that basis they want to deter anyone going to a private school at primary level in London. But for full time workers it is a catch 22 because many state primaries losing pupils cancel the after school and breakfast clubs as they aren’t financially viable anymore.

And this is another thing to highlight - DCs state primary with a thriving after school and breakfast club very much relies on that income stream. This is still an oversubscribed school with an outstanding rating. The Ofsted has almost become like branding/advertising for state schools. Which is very weird if you think about it.

Obviously screwing with the kids in exam years in private schools is an absolute lunacy especially Year 9 and above as we know the Covid effect is there on all. Attacking private school kids socially and emotionally would be crazy.