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?

Son at PS - I will vote Labour - its a small price to pay for getting these bastard self serving incompetent Tories out

It’s because the type of children that parents are sending to these schools aren’t the same ones that would go to a specialist indepdent at that particular point in time. They are more th le lower end of needs where the la is turning down even a request for assessment or a basic top up in mainstream so they wouldn’t pay 7.5k to £9k be fund a small private school som a parents do choose to do this rather than fight for an ehcp. Unfortunately by the time the la deems needs significant enough to assess or decide mainstream can’t meet needs the child’s needs have escalated to way past a point the small indepdent is suitable. There are some children there that the la funds but their parents have gone to tribunal

£7k is the average per pupil overall and includes top ups for sen, deprevation etc. the bog standard amount per child in the lowest funded la’s is more like £4k to £5k

Just realised I’ve just an old link let me find another

@MirrorBack this is an la doc that shows funding per pupil on 3rd page it’s from 22/23 but hasn’t gone much since then

https://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/sites/default/files/field/pdf/2021/9/17/Transfer-of-funding-to-the-High-Needs-Block-consultation-summary.pdf

no - I’m a Tory voter anyway so will vote for them, I have my kids in ps.

@notthatthis

But I am not rich. I just earn more than the average salary. Perspective.

I'm sorry to labour the point but if your household earns enough to pay £60k a year to privately educate your children, you are objectively rich in the grand scheme of things.

You might not feel it. Your peers may be 'richer', but to say you are 'not rich' when you can spend twice the average salary on private education is astounding!

It would be rude to ask your household income but I would be interested to know what it is as I really think you are out of touch with what the average person lives on.

This.

The fact someone has £60,000 a year to spend on school fees, after the mortgage, utilities, food, clothing etc etc then says they are 'not rich' shows how out of touch some are.

Missing a holiday and driving older cars etc to pay school fees also out of touch when many struggle to just live and pay bills and don't even earn enough for school fees let alone after bills paid.

Rich grandparents funding school fees, well done they aren't poor pensioners then are they. Its lovely they have spare money.

Only the wealthy can afford it right now. The inequality between the top 10% and top 1% of earners is vast, so people sending their kids to private schools can feel relatively poor. Don't mistake this for having the same range of choices as the vast majority of people. Most couldn't dream of private education no matter what sacrifices they make.

Some people are very tone deaf to how the majority live. Tone deaf to average salaries. The tone deafness makes them claim they are 'not rich' after paying £60,000 for school fees 🙄 it's laughable. Millionaires might day they are not rich too when compared to billionaires.

What's the income distribution like in these countries compared to the UK- this is rhetorical by the way!

I do think pp need to re think how different Aus isn’t to UK

Culturally, and with major metrics it’s the most similar there is

Being far away means sod all frankly. It’s culture and metrics that align

It's not a class divide though, my DH and I are high earning but we are not wealthy. We are the professional classes, my DH is an Director in an Architecture practice, I work in privacy/info security, we went to university as did our parents, they have wealth from windfalls from property. It is not about class, the demise of the middle and working classes over the last 40 years in this country like the U.S has seen the rise of the wealthy, it is the difference between wealth acquisition and not being in that category, even if you have a high income. For this reason it is disingenuous to suggest it is about the country being in it together with income tax and comparisons to EEA, particularly the Nordic countries is equally disingenuous as the gap in standard of living between the wealthiest and the poorest is not anywhere close to the UK.

I dont think rich has a clear definition in the way poverty has. With poverty there are a few measures like absolute poverty or a relative poverty which is 60% of the median. You can also measure mean and median incomes to find an average

But rich could mean anyone not in absolute poverty, anyone not in relative poverty, anyone over average income, anyone in the top 10%. It could also look at wealth not just income.

So if your view of rich is anyone on more than average and someone elses view of rich is anyone in the top 1% of wealth. You arent going to agree.

Exactly, everyone I know would have to put that towards housing, we are the lucky ones as none of us rent anymore, all early to mid 40s. Feeling lucky to have a small house (in our case) in a good area makes us feel pretty guilty as all around us, younger gen Z we work with where rent is unaffordable in good jobs, the increase in homeless people in the city centre, the friend of Dd's sharing a bedroom with her Mum etc. The disparities in wealth are truly uncomfortable, why do people want it all for themselves, only voting for more inequality and complaining when people choose to vote for this imbalance to be addressed such is their democratic right! It is perfectly valid to vote for policies that aren't just self serving!

I'm not oblivious, I know it does. Both my parents were from working class backgrounds but had opportunities in the 1960s to go to uni that just don't exist now. I was making the point that it is not a tax on the middle class as a majority of the Middle class can't afford PS.

Just to clarify we don't have wealth from windfalls but our Boomer parents do. We are not wealthy at all we both only got rid of our student OD 2 years ago we are early to mid 40s. Despite our income we lived in a two bedroom flat where our DC had the big bedroom to share up until they were 10 and 6.

Hence why we as middle class people can't afford Private school - all friends our age are in a similar position so it is not a class divide it is a wealth divide and that has been fuelled by Conservative policies.

There are a few posters who post as such and I wonder if it’s due to being priced out

We have had a very good outcome with state and as such my good will is quite high, eg I would pay on a policy to boost state

I really don’t care if others do pay a huge amount for private. Had we done the same we’d probably have a Ds doing the degree he is at the university he is

So all good, I don’t share the need to pull others across to state. I’m more let people pay and decrease state burden

My DSIS is a sole breadwinner, there is one dependent adult (no other income, not British citizen) and 1 DC in family. Her total take home pay is 54k pa - the same as combined of yours. She pays 29k pa for PS for DC and three of them live on remaining 25.
No way she can afford VAT though.

We're both in Lon - children from that PS and most other PSs get mugged on their way from school every single day. Muggers are 14-16 y/olds from surrounding state schools.
If VAT kicks in her DC will have to move to the same school where these muggers are and their life will be completely devastated. No amount of money thrown will sort the issue at this school, it's not funding, it's parents cohort in that and many other sinking states.

I absolutely was going to vote Labour - not a chance I will do now

Well you wonder wrong. I have a DS in 6th form college who went to a state comprehensive and achieved very highly in GCSEs, higher than his extended family counterpart who had attended one of the best schools in the country.

I'm unsure if you are deliberately misinterpreting my points but it certainly wasn't about missing out, it is about the distribution of wealth that is incredibly unequal in this country, an inequality that has been fuelled by the current government's policies over the last 13 years! Obviously, this demise of the middle and working classes began in the Thatcher years with the neo-liberal policies that she adopted. Something I'm sure you are an avid supporter of.

I went to private school until I was 12 I never wanted my children to go.

Hence why we as middle class people can't afford Private school

This line was what stood out.

Something I’ve noticed, maybe an expectation it shouldn’t be out of reach for middle class people