Why do people think parents who pay for private education are enormously wealthy?

[SheineOn]

Is this just the stereotype?

I went to a school that cost 18k a year (15 years ago). It’s now 24k a year.

There were wealthy people there. But also many ‘normal’ people. At least 40% fell into that category. People who lived on estates, drove modest cars, skipped holidays and ate cheaply.

They made a choice to spend their money on private education. For context, two of my closest friends have dc in private. They live off 450 a month after paying fees. They are not high earners.

Not everyone has endless wealth. Some are just happy to make the sacrifice. I find it strange people don’t seem to get that and makes me wonder how lacking in knowledge you must be to have that view of the private sector.

To have 24k spare after bills to pay fees means you have to be incredibly wealthy. Hth.

I certainly wouldn't assume most people would be foolish enough to spend £20k plus a year per child if they couldn't afford it?
I've certainly never met anyone from a normal income who sends their kids private. They're all way above average. There used to be assisted places where you got a few broke kids in each year, but I don't even think they have that anymore.

Basically the OP has shown that she has no idea...

(I am intrigued by all these households of three people living on £450pcm as a sacrifice, after a while the cold and malnutrition would affect the child and you'd expect social services to get involved).

She's not wrong though. If through cutting back on holidays and new cars you can rustle up a spare £20k a year you are wealthy.

not "wealthy" but "wealthy enough".

Private school is not just the yearly fee, is it.

Realistically, it's the add on that kill you - when you can afford the basic rate, obviously. It's the uniforms, the clubs, the trips. It's not having the only child who never goes on holiday, has never travelled anywhere, can't host a birthday party.

I don't have anything against parents who pay for private. When you see the alternative it's commendable. You do need a certain income to be able to afford them, that's not an insult.

”Some are just happy to make the sacrifice” - just to point out that private schooling isn’t a choice because you need the spare cash for some years. How do you think a shop assistant can pay to send their kids to the local private school? What sacrifices can they make on their wage? Same for most jobs.

I appreciate your honesty in this post. A lot of people are not so willing to acknowledge the limitations of their world view.

I had a privileged upbringing too. We certainly weren't wealthy and couldn't afford to go on as many holidays as some of my friends etc, but my parents were both university educated and we lived in a nice house etc. Most of the people who went to my village's state primary school lived in a similarly privileged bubble.

Going to my state secondary (comprehensive) and interacting with kids from a much wider range of backgrounds was a real eye opener for me. Having previously thought of our family as "normal", I began to realise how incredibly privileged we actually were. I have gone to considerable lengths to ensure that my dd recognises the same.

I actually do regard a lot of middle class families using state schools as being very privileged. The word "wealthy" clearly means different things to different people, but they are certainly very fortunate. And whether they choose to spend their money on private education/fancy holidays/posh cars/bigger houses/future deposits for their children etc isn't really the point. The fact that they have the freedom to make those choices is what makes them privileged. Many vulnerable families also have to make choices, but often, their choices are between eating and heating their homes etc.

Most of us are pretty oblivious to how incredibly privileged we are, and this is why inequality on a massive scale is allowed to continue.

Because only 7% of the population send the children to fee paying schools

Average earning are approximately £35k and private school £24k, which is the same as NMW

Normal is average and fee paying schools aren't average as other wise a much larger % of the population would attend for it to be normal

Jesus it’s just VAT - Keir isn’t planning on shooting all the private school children.

booooo hoooooo poor people using private schooling. Having to pay ghastly VAT! Literal murder.

OP no one who send their children to state gives a flying fuck about the stupid sods who have overreached themselves paying for something unnecessary.

cry me a river

people were questioning if you meant before/after housing costs and other bills. if that's £450 DISPOSABLE INCOME, then yes they are very privileged.

surely you understand the vast majority of the country right now doesn't have £450 every month after they've paid their bills? are you seriously that out of touch with reality?

This thread has helped me figure out how VAT on private school fees would raise money. Not just from school fees, but from all the things given up to afford fees (nicer car, etc) which could then be purchased (these will have a VAT charge).

If you don’t think having a spare £2k a month PER child to spend on school fees ( plus uniform, music lesson, trips etc etc) makes someone well off - then you don’t!

£24 k isn’t much less than a U.K. average take home after - so for most people it is a LOT of money.

Think of all the manicures!

because if you're wealthy enough to pay for it, even if you struggle a bit, you're doing financially much better than most.

Very few people have a spare 15k+ per year. Most people live with very little left over.

Except you are wrong even if you are being facetious.
Leaving private = I give up work and we put any excess into pensions. We won't just buy stuff.

Some CAN AFFORD to make the ‘sacrifice’ you mean.
Presumably if the choice was between roof over your head/food/ clothing/ bills or send child to private school, even the ‘strivers’ would choose the former???

44k is significantly above average earnings -

I find it strange people don’t seem to get that and makes me wonder how lacking in knowledge you must be to have that view of the private sector

If private education makes you sound like a smug twat, I'm glad I haven't sent our child.

The problem is that "wealthy" is being used to describe anyone doing a bit above average, in term of salary.

A couple can manage to scrap together £24k for an only child, 2 working parents, the salary of one goes entirely in school fees. It's not impossible.

It's a world of difference with the "super wealthy" who don't bat an eyelid about the £50K+ per child plus all the other costs.

Completely different scenarios, completely different resources, but we just describe them as "wealthy", which is not really accurate is it

Yup. As are a lot of people with enough money for this. It's like the whole, 'young people could buy a house if they stopped buying avocados' bullshit. No clue. And these are the kknds of people running the country.

It's absolutely not possible even if you both work full time in a graduate job paying 40000 each.

Currently, 58 per cent of students receive varying levels of government sponsorship under the Music and Dance Scheme, but it is not known whether these places will attract VAT, and if so whether the DfE would cover them.

My dd went to a school that was funded in years 7-11 by the Music & Dance Sceheme and then by Dada.

Taking Royal Ballet School as an example (not the school dd went to) . Every UK/European child who gets a place there is eligible for MDS funding on a sliding scale so the 42% who are not funded will be international students or whose families earn over the threshold. Also the children are taken on potential. They can be identified (and have been ) by schemes like Chance to Dance where free classes are set up for underprivileged children then the ones with talent are cherry picked regardless of income.

It is the same for music schools like Cheethams. For some it's the only way their families can afford for them to dance/play an instrument.

And that's fine if you earn enough after tax to cover the fees and if your partner's income is sufficient to cover everything else. But presumably you realise that many people need the second income to cover their essential living costs?

You do realise many people don't even earn £18k a year?

I don't know many people who could afford to blow 24k a year on schooling. That's a vast sum. More than a lot of people even earn in a year.
As for all the stories on here about people scrapping the money together to afford the "sacrifice" that's just stupid. No holidays, working 70 hours a week etc to afford it lol you're kids would much rather spend time with you and have nice holidays then go to an overpriced school when there's one round the corner for free.

So yeah y'all are either rich or financially irresponsible