To think parents of private education school children will be fine

[Bluewhitered]

I’ve seen lots of threads on this topic recently. It would be great to have it’s own section so those who want to chat about it with fellow parents , can without an argument.

But private school parents and their children!! We will be just fine. There’s so much smugness and bitterness and hate coming from people who think it’s great the VAT will be added and force some out. In fact I don’t disagree - add VAT on ! Great, and then we can take either our state places up … win win we have more money to spend on holidays, deposits for houses for our kids, private tutors, extra cirricular activities etc and we can probably move to better areas with the outstanding state schools or OR we pay it it we can afford to keep our children there.

On some of the independent school committees they are working out how to charge the fees differently so the actual fees we will pay 20% on are low and the rest of the money is on stuff that’s exempt from VAT. They are also looking at changing the nature of the schools so the children get their state education allowance and then pay extras on top- like you would nursery extras.

The chance of labour implementing it is low. There are solicitors looking at it now and whether they can change the law to allow it.

So either way we’re not in a bad position - as most of the threads argue we are the wealthiest in The UK- some can’t afford food bills etc so we are incredibly lucky to have choice and it is true we must have money to
even contemplate spending £25k on each child in school.

@Euromonkey no of course not! They’ve got to do until Christmas term as it’s a terms notice! And yes to the houses . This chat has been on going for 6 months we were ready to make decisions ! As are many other parents - it’s been on the cards for a long time if labour comes in. I’m sure it’ll work out well for us and it’s not something we had considered before the potential VAT increase. But it’s ok! Things change and we are happy to move

Merging - the school are merging . The governors sent an email out in April when the sign on numbers were low. The larger school are taking over- kids won’t have to move but they are buying the premises and coming under the same umbrella. It’s quite common to take prep schools under a larger wing

You are talking nonsense.

Making up things on the internet to fit a narrative.

" We have done that cliche thing though of moving to a nice small village, with a grammar school and effectively it is similar to their school already"

Hmmm, villages with a grammar school

Talking shite.

Well, you've convinced me OP. I was only voting Labour because I thought this policy was going to make people who used private schools unhappy because of my deep rooted working class green eyed chip on my shoulder politics of envy. Now I know you're going to be better off...well..I'm going to vote Tory now just to spite you. And I urge all Labour voters to do the same!

Haha! But I bet they they would! It’s all down to envy at the end of the day, otherwise Starmer would means test the high earners using state schools and have them contribute a small sum termly or yearly to help fill this funding void in the state sector. He would raise more funds that way rather than simply going after the dwindling 7% of private school parents!

Yes. I'm absolutely convinced that Sir Keir drew up that policy motivated entirely by his envy of Nigel and Janet from Milton Keynes and their ability to pay fees at the local prep school. I'm surprised he could see to write it, blinded as he was by jealousy. He must sit there literally fuming at the injustice that denied him the same lofty heights of success in life.

Then why not go for the bigger income generator that is the high earners using the very free state schools that are in such dire need of extra funding? The current ‘policy’ will end up generating pittance by the time you net out the extra funding needed to educate those leaving private schools to move into the state sector! And all the ‘extra’ income not spent on school fees Labour think is suddenly going to be spent on lots of extra niceties that apparently couldn’t be afforded before, will only go into ISAs (junior ISAs have a 9k allowance a year) and junior SIPPs not spent on imaginary VAT generating frivolities (this is generally how these people hang on to their wealth in the first place!!)

Because this is a very silly idea from you designed to attempt to convince others to protect your privilege.

Also most schools get contributions for parents.

“protect your privilege“ ?! Wouldn’t high earners, wherever they choose to send their children to school, have the same ‘privilege’ you refer to?

They aren't asking for tax breaks on a discretionary purchase.

Why indeed? If all Labour care about is 'punishing the wealthy' and 'penalising success' because...ENVY!!! Then surely it would be even more effective to charge them for something everyone else gets for free? If you object to the policy on economic grounds, fair enough, but to suggest KS dreamed it up due to jealousy of the wealthy is beyond ridiculous.

It is not a tax break if there is absolutely no tax on any form of ‘private education’ in existence in this country! There is no VAT on tutors or afterschool clubs and extra curricular activities…..! This is a special tax dreamt up for private school users and them only!

It's a tax break.

Almost every other discretionary purchase of the same value would carry VAT, it's a tax break.

"There is no VAT on tutors or afterschool clubs and extra curricular activities"

Because these don't convey privilege on the recipients in the same way as private education.

"This is a special tax dreamt up for private school users and them only!"

Who can pay tax for the privileges they are buying their kids.

Simple.

It does not make sense on economic grounds because, as I mentioned above, it will end up generating very little net for net once there is the inevitable shift of students from private to state. If it was simply made for economic reasons, they would have gone with means testing the higher earners using state education as was suggested to Starmer by economists but very much ignored for the less income generating policy of (further) taxing private school users.

“Because these don't convey privilege on the recipients in the same way as private education”

oh yes they do! I have a few high earning friends who use state schools and then tutor like mad at home and have gotten their children into top grammars or back into private education for secondary school. So like it or not, high earners using state education (in primary especially) also have a very significant privilege over other children in their same class!

Mental gymnastics right here.

So they use the state system at some point? Fine.

Private? VAT.

Easy.

Which makes no sense on political grounds, because other than from private school parents, I can't see there being much public appetite for it. The people being asked to pay for something other people get for free would be unsupportive, people not being asked to pay may see it as a slippery slope which could one day mean they will be asked to pay for it, and those of us (I'd hope the majority) who believe the principle of free state education should be safeguarded as essential to the country's future would be strongly opposed. It would be a very silly policy to put before the electorate, and not in keeping with the ethos of the Labour Party.

And to add, these are generally the children disrupting the class because they are bored senseless …. Having already covered the curriculum with their tutors (which Labour propose to not add VAT to their fees because apparently being able to afford using a tutor is not considered a “privilege”?!)

I knew the run up to the election was going to be quite grim on here as have seen it get worse and worse over the last 20 years but I didn’t think I would see people suggesting a tax on state education.

Making things up now to fit an agenda

Not worth bothering with.

I am not advocating taxing state education! If you bothered to read my earlier post properly, I suggested that if this policy was about raising the funds needed to improve the conditions in state schools then those who are considered higher earners and using these schools should contribute more to the system that is educating their children for free. Clearly the country cannot afford to give all the great education they deserve for absolutely free, so those who clearly can afford to contribute more (they have no problem spending ALOt of money on private tutors) should instead be asked to contribute more for the benefit of all the children using state education and even more so for those who do not have the privilege of extra funds to be spent on private tuition at home!

Not at all! This is all fact and heard first hand I’m afraid.

Anecdata fail.

That is effectively a tax on education, albeit not for everyone.

Believe what you like!