To not see how the gov will make any money from taxing private schools?

[AngryHedgehog]

All the other threads seem to have descended into bunfighting over the ethics of the policy, yet I'm not really understanding how this stands to benefit the government as surely they'll be footing the bill for all the kids that move to state schools?

As a disclaimer, I don't have kids and wouldn't be able to afford to privately educate them even if I did, despite earning a half decent salary.

I'm reading that it costs around £7k per pupil per term, so it would take the VAT from around four families to fund each additional child moving to state education.

Given that this may be 4/10 kids in private education moving to state schooling, I don't see how this doesn't create a net loss as there will only be 50% more kids left in private education and there needs to be multiple times that for the VAT increase to foot the bill.

Surely I'm missing something here?

The number of people who have to pull their children out will vary from school to school. The 'elite' schools probably won't notice a difference, I think a lot of people when they think of private schools immediately think about the very wealthy.

A bigger issue might be that if schools with a high number of middle class earners who are stretched to afford the fees pull out that could affect the whole school, there has been a rise in private schools closing over the past few years. So it's then not just the children who now can afford it coming into the state sector but potentially a lot more if some schools close.

A 20% increase for me would take me from being able to afford the fees (as long as we live cheaply and have no luxuries) to just not having the money to pay for it.
My two DC who are in private would need EHCPs to manage in a state school and when we looked into it previously the only provision was in special units in another county, LA provided transport was thousands of pounds a year.
There are lots of children like this in my children's school who would have EHCPs if they were elsewhere. There are also a high proportion of care experienced children in our school. Most families are not rich but have children who do not fit in mainstream for one reason or another other. How will the state system cope? It certainly won't save any money.

A lot of the children who need EHCPs won’t get them- that’s the unfortunate reality.

@TheCountessofFitzdotterel yes, sadly. And then those children will be in mainstream classrooms with no extra support and that will affect the whole class.

I wonder about overseas students too, my local boarding school has a large proportion of overseas students. With a 20% rise in fees I wonder how many prospective families will send their children to another country instead? That would be a large loss of income for our local community at least.

That is what I can’t get past @muckymayhem - we will probably not have to pull the kids out. But we don’t easily afford it, and we’ll have to cut back in other areas to get through a sticky few years. That’s money we would otherwise spend on clothes / holidays/ eating out…there won’t be any new money in the economy from us! And I’m sure it’s true of many others. There are very few parents in our school who are hugely wealthy, most are like us and scraping it together.

Wow is it a special school then? Even in high areas of need there aren’t hoards of EHCPs as they’re so hard to get.

Kids with EHCPs aren’t included in this anyway.

How do you know it’s all EHCP kids that will need to move? 🤔Is it not now kids who will take grammar places then? Smacks of scaremongering- again.🙄

Finally many children who don’t fit into state mainstream cope because they have to. Privately educated kids aren’t more fragile and will cope too, because they’ll have to.

Starmer isn't being a generous overlord by sparing those of us with children with EHCPs - the state already pays for them!

Plenty of children who don't belong in mainstream don't cope at all - look at attendance figures. Many of those who don't attend full time are SEN.

I believe the headteacher at More House School - a special school - has already warned that whilst he does have children without EHCPs there, the children who attend who do have one will likely be affected if they need to put up fees and then close.

I'm fortunate that my DD is in an independent specialist which only accepts those with EHCPs so if Starmer wins, we should be OK but this policy still has me nervous.

And all for what? Making private education even more elitist!

@Uplift I didn't say all kids with EHCPs at all. I wrote about my own experience with my own children and at our school (which specialises in trauma and EBSA) many families are in the same boat. There is no "coping because they have to". Instead it becomes absenteeism and further trauma and less chance of being a functional adult.

So those enjoying the inequality a private education brings is helping those children by…..?

He’s not making private education more elitist, he’s raising money, whatever the sum and beginning to reduce the numbers of people gaining advantage by inequality.

I hope they go further with other measures. You’re just annoyed because you’re at risk of no longer being able to buy elitest priviledge for your children and will be one of the majority. Funny how we heard nothing from all these parents when they were quietly enjoying the unfair advantages private education brings for their kids.🤔

@Uplift it won't raise any money, that's the point of this thread

Sorry I don’t agree with that. Scaremongers with a reason to scaremonger doesn’t mean it won’t raise any money.

Aren't approx 70% of private schools registered charities? How does that alter the situation?

@Uplift he's really not. We had three options for secondary school for DS private school, outstanding faith school (better chance if we moved) or an outstanding state school which required us to move. We would not consider the local state school.

A 20% increase for VAT was doable, a further 20% in 2 years time maybe but then a further 20% etc etc so we moved we now have a choice between the faith or the outstanding state school both of which get very similar results to the private we would have used.

The only difference is we would have spent the money on fees to buy the "privilege" vs now we pay it off the mortgage and will likely get it back in a few years when we sell. The further you are from both schools the cheaper the houses are so once again it's the poor kids that will miss out the amount of parents near us living here for the same reason is massive. Some will move on once the kids are in school other will stay which just drives the remaining houses up even further.

KS just wants to get into debt to be "equal" then our kids will be paying it off.

And of course you care about the poor kids.🤣

My kids are moving to private from a state secondary in september, and I have a handful of my friends who have children in private, across different schools in the SE. All the schools are communicating that if it comes into force they will be claiming back every bit of VAT they can, going back years, and will use every (legal) opportunity they can to pass the minimum of the VAT to the parents.

I agree it's an attention grabbing headline, - it's not going to get anywhere with regards improving state education or reducing inequality. Most parents will carry on with private if they can. I also agree that if they can't they'll likely move house to better catchments - that's what I would do - and would have done if private hadn't been an option.

A few more £ per school (even if it reaches them) will not improve the lack of teachers, poor behaviour etc that is a huge issue currently impacting the ability of many state schools to offer a solid education to their pupils.

Education has got far deeper issues than just funding, and taxing the tiny minority of parents who pay for private school isn't going to touch the sides.

It gets people up in arms and voting Labour though, so mission accomplished as far as they are concerned.

@Uplift I get it that you enjoy the prospect of poshos having to leave private education, but where will the 6500 new teachers that Starmer has promised come from?

well since many of the kids in the private school where we live are the children of drug dealers, dodgy “businessmen” and general gang types, I expect the cost of a baggy/cocaine to go up ditto the protection money paid for “security” at building sites, for restaurants etc.

But that aside, it does appear to be a headline tactic to appeal to the masses a bit like nearly all of the Tory policies that are being touted.

In the long term, it will be a big net cost to the government and I think they will then start taxing other aspects of education to try make some money.

I agree that the majority of parents will find the money when the policy is implemented...but they will only suck it up until the next transition point. So the increased demand on places for good states and grammars is going to rocket. As I have said on another thread, our prep school historically sent upwards of 90% of children onto private secondary schools. This has dropped to 50% for 2024 leavers and is only going to increase further. Multiple families of current Y5 students have moved house in the last 9 months to be able to access good state secondary schools.

The theory that parents who stop spending money on fees will spend on goods and services instead and therefore pay more VAT does not add up. Like pretty much every other family I know, I will be cutting my working hours so I am no longer a top rate tax payer. DH will be diverting more money into his pension. They got money in stamp duty from our house move to be in state catchment - I am pretty sure the loss of NHS hours and income tax over the combined 9 years my children are in secondary will far offset that. Then add on the fact they will be paying for their education from 11...

This policy is going to help the elite stay elite and have worse outcomes for everyone else. Saying that, there is not a hope in hell I would vote Tory so I have no idea what I will do

Fucking hell. Give your head a wobble. You're having a go at a parent with a child who has an EHCP.

The people who are comfortable can afford that tiny increase

Tiny? If charged at the full 20% it's not tiny.

I think that from Labour's point of view it doesn't really matter that it will cost more than it makes, that's not the purpose of this policy. The policy is about being seen to increase tax on "the rich" because many core and wavering Labour voters see those who can afford to send their children to private school as being rich. They're not rich of course, many of them, they struggle and make sacrifices in other areas because they think paying for a decent education for their child is more important than having all the sports channels and having holidays abroad.

This plan is about style over substance - Labour know it will win them more votes than it loses them. That's the important thing in politics generally, but especially in the run up to an election, even an election they seem bound to win. Get the votes, get the power, the inevitable mess comes later. Labour will use "it's the fucking Tories" as an excuse for the country still being in a state at the (presumably) 2029 election. By the 2034 election this crop of would-be cabinet ministers will be stepping down anyway, they'll have made their names and will be moving on to more lucrative endeavours like after-dinner speeches. Shit, even Liz Truss is coining it now - all that matters is being at the top of British politics and you're set for life.

Why is this allowed? Because us, the stupid public, are willing to accept it. We need to stop thinking that politicians are trying to do the best for the country, they are only out for themselves. They might dress things up as doing their best for their country - occasionally they might even do something that actually does help - but only as a secondary concern to the real priority: get power, then make money.

Dotjones
I agree with you.

@Dotjones I thought it was a tax on principle. VAT is for luxuries, and what is more of a luxury purchase than a private education when a state education is available to all?

(see also private health care)

Labour is against private education in principle. Taxing it is a logical step for a sector you ideologically oppose.

The proportion of kids at private school is roughly the same as 20 years ago despite school fees rocketing. Lots of people will just pay the extra and cut back on holidays etc. Others can easily afford it or have Grandparents paying. Most people don't make such a huge financial commitment unless they have a bit of wriggle room.

Private schools save the government money as they're not costing the government the fee that is paid to state schools per year for a child place.

The tax on private schools will push lots of children into state schools and end up costing them more in the long run.

In some countries they subsidise private schools as the subsidiary payment is cheaper than all those pupils going into state schools.

Hopefully when he’s tackled the shite the Tories have done to education more will want to teach.