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?

I think all parties need to give a clear out when making announcements about how things will be paid for. There is no magic money tree unless taxes increase and tax bands stay frozen for a lot longer

This plan is about style over substance - Labour know it will win them more votes than it loses them.

Not sure about that. I think the squeezed middle see it for what it is, a general attack on their lifestyles. Not just on the ones who send their kids to private school.

The squeezed middle are about to become the absolutely crushed middle if Labour plan any largesse.

The question is, do they actually figure this out before the election ?

And if they do as a result of them examining this policy and then extrapolating the consequences for their greater aspirations and lifestyles - a vote winner it won't be.

I don't think the privately educated can be classed as the squeezed middle. It's only 6% of the country's children and I'd say very much the top earners would be represented there. I think people who use private schools who think they can afford it because they're careful with money have no idea how the vast majority of people in this country live.

I'm reading that it costs around £7k per pupil per term,

No, it's £7k per year. So 1/3 of the cost you think. Perhaps private schools should take a look at how state schools manage on so much less money per pupil. Then they may not need to pass on the costs to their customers?

It's not about raising money. About 7% school age children are in private education - the top boarding schools are about £45000 a year, but most are less. The smaller schools will suffer most, because they're the ones where parents are only just managing the fees. It won't raise huge amounts in the grand scheme of things, and any financial gains in taxation will probably be lost and more in private school pupils having to transfer to state schools and private schools having to close (loss of employment etc.) But it's ideological.

I'm not against more taxation of people/businesses who can afford it more, but I don't think it adds up in this case.

The thing is that teachers salaries and pensions are a schools biggest cost and they are not VAT recoverable. This is why the larger, more elite schools will be in a stronger position because it costs them more to maintain their facilities so they will have more to reclaim. The smaller schools are going struggle.

@Uplift what is he doing for education. This is the only policy he has talked about. It's a gimmick and just for the headlines and will do nothing to help the crisis in education.

The schools that will suffer are the smaller private schools, where it is likely that the majority of children with SEND who are in private school go, smaller classes and pastoral support. Some of these schools are already having to close due to COL and this will push a few more over the brink. You can sit and gloat that these children now have to go state school, but what about the school staff being made redundant.

State schools don't have the budget to employ them. The amount they get per pupil is not enough, many state schools are teetering on the brink too. And school funding is lagged so they won't receive any funding for these additional pupils for at least another year (which will help Labour's assertion that this policy saves money as won't have to be spending any additional money in first year, but going forward it won't)

And do you think your statement that pupils with SEND don't have a fortune spent on them in state schools is a good thing? There is not enough money in the budget for them, but much time and resources are spent on them.

And where are the 6500 new teachers coming from. Targets for teacher training are not being met now, so why suddenly will so many more people think teaching is attractive?

Mixing dc from high achieving, intelligent families will potentially have a positive impact on state schools and lift achievement and behaviour. It could potentially lift dc out of poverty as the network available to you in life really sets the path you’re on. Mixing more dc from families with a good work ethic should have a positive impact on our state schools.

@GasPanic - if you count the 6% sending their children to private schools as the Squeezed Middle, your idea of middle and its actual meaning are a bit at odds.

Most people I know who have children that are teachers are leaving to work abroad as it's just too stressful in the UK.

Perhaps private schools should take a look at how state schools manage on so much less money per pupil. Then they may not need to pass on the costs to their customers?

Larger classes, less well-maintained buildings and grounds, fewer support staff, fewer resources in science labs, art departments, drama departments, sports departments, libraries, classrooms, etc, etc. Better resources and more attention via smaller classes are literally the advantages you expect to get if you're paying for private education for your child.

@Iscreamtea most schools aren't coping with the amount of money they get. Haven't you heard about the crisis in education? In many schools there are times when they are just putting any adult in front of class, not a qualified teacher. Schools are crumbling (my username is apt!). Children are being failed due to the lack of resources. State schools are having to make staff redundant, not because they don't need them, but because they can't afford them. I think 60% of state maintained schools are currently showing a deficit budget for next year and it is getting worse.

@TeenLifeMum bearing in mind the majority of children go to state school now, why are there so many behavioural problems etc in many schools.

Nonsense. Given the small percentage of children in private schools there are already a lot of children from educated high achieving families in state schools.
If they have not been able to resolve the issues, how are a few more going to help?

There are (I’d put my dc in this category) but the more the better for driving improvement. I don’t really agree with private education though so that’ll impact my views.

Starmer is planning to use Wales a blueprint - after 27 years of Labour rule, PISA scores in Wales are at their lowest ever level, significantly below the average across OECD countries and significantly below those seen across the rest of the UK and these can't be explained by differences in poverty levels. Clearly brimming with valuable, proven ideas.

They aren't "taxing the schools" they are simply getting rid of the exemption they had since vat was introduced.

I think Labour want to get rid of private schools because they deem them to be "not fair", rather than because they want to raise money by taxing their income from fees.

It seems fair that they should be taxed though - any other business is taxed on it's profit.

Based on what, gut feel? There are multiple reports out now looking at the revenue impact of this policy and even the most optimistic scenario (which probably isn’t a possibility anymore in light of this year’s enrolment drop) raises a very little, especially in context of Labour’s spending promises.

if you want to rail against the injustice of private education there are about a dozen active boards at the moment. Can we please keep this one on topic?

Aye, it's a tiny middle - a wasp waist perhaps

And getting rid of private schools is a good thing, I think everyone should have equality of education, private schools are a barrier to this because they cream off the parents who are more active often

Not true. I’m aware that private schools are also having unprecedented behaviour problems.
State schools are already full of children from intelligent, high achieving families with a good work ethic.

I don’t understand why Labour isn’t proposing abolishing grammar schools too. Very few counties still have them and grammar schools are undoubtedly elitist but paid for by the tax payer.

VAT on private school fees is simply the politics of envy, as demonstrated by all those posters delighted at the thought of “rich” people having to pay more

Getting rid of private schools does not in any way lead to equality of education. That’s really naive. The difference between quality of state schools is unreal - and we know who will be buying the houses in catchment for the good ones.

You're right OP - the maths doesn't add up and there is already evidence that fewer people are attending private school open days and signing their DC up to start at private school - before Labour even gets into power.

I suspect that most parents with DC already in the private system will try to manage until a natural leaving age of 11, 16 or 18 but the bigger point is that many of them now won't consider starting their DC at private, so the number at private schools will fall quite dramatically over the next few years.

And don't forget that those parents with DC in private schools almost all pay the highest rate of tax, thereby funding state school places that their DC don't use so, in effect, paying twice to educate their DC. If, in future, they take up places in state schools that money will no longer be available to educate the DC of parents who either don't pay tax or pay lower rates. It doesn't make an ounce of economic sense.