To be a private school parent who doesn't mind the VAT?

[PrincessOfPreschool]

I just wanted to write this to show the other side. Not all private school parents are moaning and I think it's the ones who understand the spectrum of society and their privilege within it, who aren't the ones moaning.

Writing on behalf of my friend who is not on MN but is sick and tired of all the school WhatsApps going round bemoaning VAT. She thinks it's fair, she's happy to pay it. She's aware of her privilege.

She has one son in state school (with SEN) and one in private school. So she knows both systems. She's grateful for the privilege of being able to send one child privately. Most of her close friends (her children went to state primary) do not have children in private school. She's sensitive to her privilege.

She is firmly in the real world. She works for the NHS and she's a bit shocked at the lack of awareness of privilege that all this moaning is showing. She's not at all wealthy but they have enough for the VAT because they don't spend much on other stuff.

These people do exist!

But VAT isn't a wealth tax, it's a spending tax.

I think there are some parents for whom this £11000 isn't a big deal. I'm rather pissed off at them for not standing up for the rest of us! If they want to donate it, whose stopping them?

In terms of education, private school is not a great ROI.

However, the value is in the vast array of benefits that the old boy/private school networks bring after education.

Only 7% of children attend private schools and yet their graduates make up the vast majority of those employed at the top of the hierarchy in virtually every industry in Britain.

It's essentially like paying for lifelong membership to special club that makes success far easier to attain than without it.

@Begsthequestion Except most private school parents aren’t wealthy.
After upper bracket income tax and 2-3 sets of school fees a ‘wealthy’ private school parent who started with circa 150000 net income can end up earning just as much as say a family of a nurse and a teacher.
Add to this 10000 due to VAT and these children will be going to comprehensives.
VAT on private schools is stupid because it doesn’t distinguish between the really rich and those who prioritize education.

I think this really depends on the industry. Something like medicine - connections aren't going to help much. I actually think the whole idea of the private school network is really outdated and it only ever applied to the really elite schools anyway. We all avoid those schools for the same reason - they're a networking club and we're looking for education.

I'm one of those parents who give up everything so the kids can go to a private school. I know the VAT is going to be a big kick in the balls, but anything for my darlings. But I'm OK with it. I just want a Labour government again.

Except most private school parents aren’t wealthy. After upper bracket income tax and 2-3 sets of school fees a ‘wealthy’ private school parent who started with circa 150000 net income can end up earning just as much as say a family of a nurse and a teacher

Oh dear.

Choosing to spend your very large salary on expensive things until it's nearly gone doesn't make you 'not wealthy'.

Surely you mean

"after paying tens of thousands of pounds to send their children to private school, the wealthy person still has an entire teacher's salary leftover to live on"

?

This was a reply to @MushMum

If you already 'give up everything', how are you going to find an extra £4000 pounds each for more than one child 🙄

Could you link me to your source for that? I presume you have one and didn't just make it up

@Begsthequestion are you wealthy?

By earning more. Self employed.

I’ve always been a Labour voter, but this is a stupid policy. The far bigger cause of structural inequality in this country - dwarfing private schools into insignificance - is housing wealth. What Labour ought to be doing is swingeing taxes on assets, particularly landlords and second homes; taxing asset wealth and rebalancing the housing market. But would you be happy for your house to lose 50% in nominal value for a Labour government, OP? Or for big taxes on boomers’ unearned property wealth? That would be a far more equitable form of redistribution which would tax the causes of economic inequality - and far more progressive than taking advantage of the fact that we’re no longer in the EU to start taxing education (which in principle is economically destructive, which is why most countries don’t do it.)

Education improves growth. Massive hoarding of housing wealth does the opposite. A really left-wing government would be proposing expanding education and taxing assets to collapse the housing bubble instead. Thinking that forcing a few middle income parents out of small private schools is a win against “privilege” is indulging in an illusion - just like Tory voters do when they enjoy penalising poor families on benefits. Both policies are just a bit of theatrics for the spite of the voters rather than real economic change.

(Plus for all the people who think that more middle class parents in the state sector will drive up standards as they will “push for change” - ha ha ha! Don’t make me laugh. I’m a school governor and the amount of pressure any parents can effect on the school system is pretty much zero.)

Sorry, my source for what? I can't think of anybody at all that I know who got a job because of networking. It's all about your CV and how you perform at interview. But I don't have a lot of experience in eg. business and finance, which might be different. I don't expect any of my children to work in that sector and I don't think they go to the right kind of schools anyway to get into those kinds of networks. We're all professionals.

It’s all a bit convenient isn’t it.

You’re writing for a ‘friend’. This apparent friend of yours has 1 child in state and one and private so she totally gets it. The child in state also had SEN. Oh and of course she works in the NHS.

All bases covered there. Very convenient. 🤔

This is probably why the really wealthy are happy with this tax - it's not hitting their real assets, just adding on a few thousand to one of their outgoings. They know they've got away lightly, and screw anybody else who genuinely wanted an education for their child, rather than this networking rubbish people go on about.

I will not be impacted by it - my children are grown up. But it will impact on how I decide to vote. I am so disappointed by this plan. I am a former Labour Party member. This smacks to me of punishing those who are doing slightly better than others by working hard and choosing how they spend in order to do the best for their children. The tories have failed at levelling up- I hope we don’t get to see how labour do at levelling down

At last some Labour voter with some sense! Despite disliking them, I think I might have voted Labour this time - I'm really worried about the NHS and also schools (my kids don't go to them, but my grandchildren probably will). But this way of paying for it is just a gimmick. For comparison, the stamp duty on a second home is 7%. Rent it out for a few years and you'll get that back.

If you can afford two or three sets of school fees you are wealthy. You're talking about what's left after spending your income, and it's your choice to spend your wealth on school fees.

I could say that I'm penniless because after paying the mortgage, bills, holiday, food, going out, sweeping money into savings etc, I have nothing left in my current account. But it wouldn't mean I'm poor,

Shortfatsuit · Today 07:55
I have quite a lot of friends who privately educate their kids. They are the same - not necessarily thrilled at the prospect of having to pay more, but accepting it because they realise that they're in a privileged position. And they have seen it as a possibility for quite a while, so they have obviously planned accordingly.”

Exactly this. If you can’t cover “unforeseen” rises (though this has been on the cards for years), don’ t commit your kids then wail because you can’t afford it. That’s on you.

Totally true - but it doesn't bother me if you believe me or not. I'm not sure why having a SEN child is a plus point, more explaining why one is state and one is private.

Totally this. And yes, my friend drives a very old vw golf and they go on camping holidays or visiting family. Their extra income is saved so that will be hit, less savings. But really, the cars and houses many of these people have and then moan about 11k 🙄. I think that's what's got to my friend.

Also interesting that only a few have replied to my OP. This wasn't supposed to be a debate about whether it's a good or bad idea. However, it's quite revealing of attitudes amongst SOME private school parents.

OP your friend can obviously afford it comfortably. Well done her. I'm very aware that I'm lucky to be able to afford it. This isn't about privilege. I just don't want to be taxed twice for a service I'm not using and be made to feel like I'm somehow responsible for the failure of state schools. It's a non-sensical policy.

The idea is that you should not tax spending on education.

I live next to an excellent local comprehensive. This is where my children will go if VAT is introduced, because after spending on privates we are left with very modest income. To give you an idea we drive a 10 year old Toyota and our house was last renovated 10 years ago. We don’t have extra £110000 to spend.

What will happen is that we will buy a new car, max out pension (non-taxable) and I will reduce my very long hours working in healthcare to supplement my kids education and drive them to out of school activities (currently done in their privates).

There are many private school parents like me.

Sigh.

Because, by the imaginary child with SEN, being in a state school, it implies that state school is fine for children with SEN. Your friend actually chose it afterall. In reality, we all know that state school very often doesn’t meet the needs of children with SEN.