To want the private school people to shut up noq

[Rescuereivers]

i am a parent with a private school
child in secondary school, and state primary child.

I mean I get it that your kids will suffer if you pull them out. But why did you not factor in a rise in costs and make damn sure you could afford it first? Cause state school is not THAT bad, and if it is in your area, there are places you can move to. if you could only just scrape by with the fees when you put them in, well that’s just reckless, and your fault not Labours.

And if your child has SEN then that’s awful, but it’s awful for parents in state schools with SEN kids too.

Please stop with the whining, cause state and private school parents alike are both heartily sick of hearing you moan.

(and you really sound like a Conservative HQ bot employed to put scare tactics on. You’ve gone over the top and it’s beginning to backfire).

I don’t agree on labours stance on trans rights but I don’t go on and on and on and on about it.

I agreed with you at the start of the year, but my god these Mumsnet threads have turned me, just due to the sheer entitlement on display.

my eldest (sen) was able to go right through private without an ehcp. Because the school knew what his issues were and helped him with them. Having it on a piece of paper doesn’t change it. It might formalise it, but it doesn’t change it.

In what way will this “not make money”?

it’s taxing education yes but it’s also taxing a privilege you don’t need to pay for.

Yeah I’m so entitled. I’ve paid a shit load of money to educate my sen child. Whatever.

@Coldsore @SOxon don't be dicks.

You know exactly what the OP means. And STFU with 'genuine question'.

Schools being able to reclaim vat on recent capex

not being able to slap vat on the portions of the fees that are for food, buses, swimming lessons, wrap around care…

economists have done the sums
and Starmer ignores them

It won’t make money if the total net VAT raised is less than the costs of having to educate more children in the state sector. There is a real possibility this could end up costing the taxpayer money. The IFS report which the Labour Party are using estimates private pupil numbers falling 3-7%. They fell almost 3% last year before the policy is even implemented.

And I bloody did need to pay for my autistic child. You have no idea about my life/area

State schools are free.
how about the users of those start paying towards their dc’s education instead of charging extra to people who already pay

5% seems low to factor in tbh - haven't school fees gone up over and above inflation for years? Was 5% sufficient for you?

Thank you for the explanation!

You HAD to pay for them? No state school in the country allowed the to be admitted?

If not - it’s still a choice. And one most people on your position can’t afford to make

Why should they?

Perhaps because those children living in poverty would be deprived of the one thing in their life that’s free? Why should that happen just so the privileged and wealthy can save a few quid?

Why would a political party ever want people to shut up debating their policy ?

Surely it is their policy and they are doing it because they think it is the right thing. If they want to shut down discussion they can just pull the policy.

They should own it and be happy it is being talked about. Or they should pull it. Not try to silence discussion on it.

As Oscar Wilde said ...

That's 20% more above inflation in the past 10 years.

Why start a new thread on something you're fed up hearing about? People are entitled to talk about a policy they're interested in or concerned about. If you don't want to talk about it, you're free to ignore those threads and discussions.

Also
Cause state school is not THAT bad, and if it is in your area, there are places you can moveto

Not everyone can easily just move, and also the issue of inequality between different state schools (and being able to afford to live near a good one) is relevant to the private school discussion.

They do.

It's called VAT.

I'm fed up of hearing people say "wahhhh it's so unfair on those who work hard to send their kids to private".

Well I work hard. I work hard and FT. Whilst I care Ft alone for my disabled ds. The disabled ds I had to take the LA to tribunal for to get them to provide a state education for him. That's mainstream state. Nothing fancy. Just a big standard school.

I still find it interesting that 4 years after being hailed keyworkers those same people are accused of not working hard enough because they are low paid jobs.

Also the VAT wouldn't be so much of an issue if the Tory's hasn't fucked up the economy and public services quite so much.

Allowing for 5% each year was fairly standard advice, as 5% was far above inflation for many years. The chart below shows that, with the exception of the last couple of years, inflation has only been around 5% twice, for a short space of time, in the last 30 years.

The problem with the VAT is that it’s a sudden 20% jump, on top of cost of living issues which everyone has faced over the last couple of years. I don’t think anyone starting private school 10 years ago could have predicted a 20% overnight tax hike coupled with 11% inflation hitting school fees and other costs of living.

93% of kids aren't living in poverty are they.

There are loads of millionaires like Starmer getting free education. Why should someone so privileged and wealthy not pay for their kids?

If private school parents have to pay 100% and then pay 20% on top, then wealthy state school parents also ought to contribute to their child's education.

Has anyone stopped to think why private schools cost so much?

The average a school receives for a state school pupil is around £7500, a little more than the average private school fees for a term?

Lets say for the sake of argument one is paying for having a class of 15 instead of 30. Most of the cost to schools is staffing, so that would cost about twice as much.

Where is the other £6000 per pupil going? Is it really essential expenditure, or could private schools if they chose to significantly reduce their costs?

There are loads of millionaires like Starmer getting free education. Why should someone so privileged and wealthy not pay for their kids?

Because they’re high rate tax payers. They kind of do

93% of kids aren't living in poverty are they

No thank god but 30% are. That’s 30% too many

Watching you try and justify this is most amusing.

Amusing?

Are you unhinged?

Yes it’s amusing seeing someone justify their unnecessary spending with “Waaaaah OTHER people should pay like me!”.

Other people on this thread have given reasoned arguments as to why they disagree with the proposal. You’re just making shitty remarks about children in poverty

My unnecessary spending.

You mean on my autistic child.

OK.

my god I've fought so long and hard for my autistic child