VAT on private school fees - will it change how you vote?

[Iwishicouldflyhigh]

Following on from the other interesting thread about whether it will be implemented, will this policy change how you vote either way?
For me - i've voted Labour and Tory over the years, but Tory for the most recent GE's. This year, i've been thinking seriously about how i'd vote at the next GE and it wasn't definitely a Tory vote - i was definitely a floating voter.
However, my children are at PS and so i will now most definitely be voting Tory (not just because how the VAT will seriously impact us - child number 3 will now not be going to the prep that we had lined up for her, she'll enter the local primary until secondary school - but how i think that it will affect schools negatively and children negatively).
I have a lot of left leaning friends who educate privately and whilst they cannot bring themselves to vote Tory, they won't vote Labour either at the next GE because of this policy.

It seems to me that this policy is only a vote loser (ie many Labour voters and 'floaters' who school privately won't vote for them at the next GE) and not a vote winner (ie i can't imagine that many Tory or 'floaters' will vote for Labour solely on this policy).

AiBU to think that Labour have really shot themselves in the foot with this idea?

Not intrigued in a negative way. If there are schools providing Sen spaces and small classes for the same money as the state system I’d actually have no issue with state funding pupils there as an alternative option. It’s an amazing use of money, to provide that for that level of fees.
I just do t really know how. When I was in a small state school staffing was about 80% of our budget. We could t have had smaller classes and maintained qualified teachers in front of kids

Higher earners do benefit from spending on public services, your taxes educate people who will service your car, fit your kitchen, staff AE and ICU units, maintain roads, rail etc.
Most of the people doing the above jobs will not be earning enough to send their kids to a PS.

Better educated societies tend to be nicer places to live, countries with vast educational inequality tend not to be.

8m people are today getting £200 in their final cost of living payment, many of these will be IN work, we ve had a decade plus of zero/negative wage growth across many sectors, hence these strikes we now have.

This is the real reason higher earners are being taxed so much

I do happen to live in the 2nd worst funded la so state schools aren’t getting anywhere near £7.5k to £9k per child. No it’s not a charity

Of course you are rich. Only rich people can afford private school fees. Our household income is in the top 25% and we could never dream of affording private school fees, no matter what sacrifices we made (well, maybe if we sacrificed eating and having a roof over our heads).

There are some seriously deluded wealthy people on this thread.

Yep, my DD and partner gross between them, 75k, very well off comparatively, not a cat in hells chance they could afford PS fees for 1 let along 2 children,, no matter how many skiing trips to Les Gets they sacrificed.

For many with kids at private school it will less about "can't afford" and more about "don't want to pay extra". It's fair enough I don't want to pay extra for things but that's life makes cuts elsewhere or state educate. Obviously not everyone

I actually don't have strong feelings about private education but I think this will be a vote winner

@notthatthis

you by your own logic vote against the tories as brexit has cost you a lot more that BAt on school fees

if you dont see it that’s a shame

Surely education policy, including fiscal policy relating to educational provision, should be focused on the rights and wellbeing of children, and not the rights of high earning adults?

Precisely that…. So high earning adults sending their children to state school should start paying in more to improve their child and classmates education.

Why is this being ignored as an option? Because this is nothing more than an envy fuelled “policy” that will only further increase the class divide!

Many other countries with successful state and private education systems means test parents to giving contributions to their child’s state school! And if you are a high earner why on earth wouldn’t you want to additionally financially contribute to improving your child’s state education and learning environment especially when it is not hitting the mark it should be?

Unfortunately it's incredibly hard to access private SEN education with an EHCP, which is why a disproportionate number seem to go to children from middle class families who can afford to access legal support for appeals etc.

Inequality is this government's bread and butter.

Inequality of educational opportunity. Health inequality. Even SEN. All increasing under this government.

And the privately educating parents of mumsnet angry at even the tiniest attempt to slightly reduce this inequality - because their own child is up the sunny end of the UK's incredibly uneven educational playing field, and they won't concede an inch.

What makes you think they don't contribute money to their child's school,,?

I am sure some do but clearly that’s not enough - it needs to be regular termly contributions on invoice to make a real difference rather than as and when donations!

They may well be contributing as much as they would be if invoiced at the school. One parent contributing isn't going to make a huge difference though. Plus how will it help schools in deprived areas? Or lower class sizes?

The question is the poster says that these schools charge 2.5k a term. Or 7.5k a year, which is the average state school funding per pupil.

I don’t understand the finances.

when I sat on an SEN panel years ago we were often paying 70k-80k on independents out of borough places for the less complex cases. If someone was offering it for 7.5k they’d have been getting A LOT of children from the panel. It would be a bargain funding wise. It would be funded.

At fees of 7.5k a year I’m interested to know how these schools function. Is this a base fee, with trips, resources etc on top a significant extra? It would make more financial sense to operate as a free school on those base funding levels, get your premises from the LA funding and access further funding for buildings etc.

Schools that are able to raise larger funds through bigger classes/ wealthier parents will receive a lesser percentage of government funding allowing for a greater proportion of this funding to go to those schools which are in greater need. The government funding pot will stay the same but this way fairer amounts gets diverted to those schools that are in greatest need.

The lowest funding in the country is about 7k
2022 source:https://www.f40.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/f40-funding-by-authority-graph_Dec22-figures.png

At 7.5k fees these schools would be broadly in line with the bottom end of school funding nationally.

These countries don’t have comparable private systems, they still for example have to use qualified teachers. There are laws about affordable fees, it’s not about a luxury Malborough style option being funded. It’s about a the state recognising the right to an alternative education (religious, Waldorf, Steiner….)
I would, within a similar system, agree with using funding for schools that signed up to these kind of rules.
I would not support schools like Eton with taxpayers money shaving a little off the fees.

Not true with Aus

I would say though, the existing free school model does provide the opportunity for a state funded alternative to state schools.
My friend set up a free schools along certain principles to meet a need, successfully.
Why don’t these low cost privates do this? What’s the barrier?

One example on a small scale.
I gave examples of what I’d support that are countries with large populations and have fairly similar needs.

Small? It’s not that low

And similar in many ways

They already do receive lesser funding. No doubt the Tory's would use it as a way of lowering tax payer contributions to state schools even more while reducing taxes for the rich. I bet state education would be no better funded. Not exactly a good way of reducing inequality in this country.

I think you need to put aside your distaste for private schools and just focus on the issue at hand with state schools. This country cannot continue to provide free services (that actually work well) so those high earning parents using the state school system, need start to pay in effectively to support the system that educates their children.

and yes, I agree that the larger money making machines such as Eton, Winchester, Marlborough etc should be treated differently to the small local independent school which more often than not attracts middle income parents who cannot afford this additional squeeze.

Aus bears greater resemblance to U.K. in a fair few ways than Finland which I often see crop up on similar threads

They already do receive lesser funding. No doubt the Tory's would use it as a way of lowering tax payer contributions to state schools even more while reducing taxes for the rich. I bet state education would be no better funded. Not exactly a good way of reducing inequality in this country.

@coffeeaddict77

Well fortunately for you we will likely have a Labour government up next so you can look forward to all the wonderful governing that they have in store for us and the UK becoming this wonderful utopia that we will all live happily ever after in!