To wonder if Private School parents think we can’t read?

[Captainmycaptains]

Work/volunteer in Education so following the whole VAT debate.

SM is full of private parent groups ‘organising’ to get the proposed VAT on fees cancelled - fine you would, wouldn’t you esp.if you’re used to getting your own way.

They’re advocating hassling local schools, councils, demanding stats and figures that don’t exist, wiring to MPs - telling people to ‘claim’ their state place to ‘disrupt’ the ‘system’ while also saying ‘ Obvs we won’t be taking Charlotte and Hugo out of school, we’ll find the money’ etc strive harder, getting granny to chip in’ but this might make the council ‘panic’.

Do they think that people in support of the VAT aren’t seeing/hearing/reading all of these plans???

the funniest one yet is the poster who said ‘ well going to claim our state school places then! See how they like that! We’ll going holiday, pay the mortgage down, shop at Waitrose and save £700k in the process, ha!’
I. no you aren’t 2. Okay - go for it! Who on earth would think £700k is worth it?? Behave like a normal person then…

YANBU - yeah, they’re noisy as expected but the rest of us are as think/ concerned as they seem to think. Also - it’s too late for Sept - waiting lists only…

YABU - applying for school places you have no intention of using is daft, and of course everyone can see what they’re trying to do.

And for the record I fucking hate the conservatives. There are no decent parties to vote for. Again. We have been very badly run for decades.

You talked about claiming back 21k. I wanted to know what that corresponds to and why you think you're owed it.

'Net contributors' is a well worn phrase and fine if it's being used by economists. But used more widely it can drip with judgement of those who aren't, and entitlement for those who are.

In reality most of us could lose that status in a second or two.

I'd like to understand what Shambles123 is talking about.

It seems like she means that by paying school fees and not sending her kids to state school she's somehow doing society a favour.

By that logic people who don't get sick or have accidents should get back what they pay into the NHS.

Education is first and foremost a service to society, everyone (including those with kids in private school or no kids at all) benefits from having a literate and reasonably skilled population. And secondly it's a service to children, not to parents.

@Croissant59

" It seems like she means that by paying school fees and not sending her kids to state school she's somehow doing society a favour.

By that logic people who don't get sick or have accidents should get back what they pay into the NHS. "

I think you misunderstood the economics. The government raises tax revenues from its citizens and corporations on a progressive basis so that those that earn more money should normally pay more taxes. I'm f course some citizens and corporations do what they can to reduce their taxes (legally or illegally).

The government then uses this tax revenue to pay for stuff like the NHS, roads, police, military and education.

Now if someone who is still paying tax the doesn't use state services such as state education then the government benefits- it still gets the tax revenue but doesn't have to pay for the state education for that child.

The poster wasn't asking for money back for state services she doesn't use but rather not to be taxed more because she didn't use state services.

To take your example of the NHS it would be like charging someone who doesn't get sick or have an accident more in taxes than someone who does, because it's unfair that they don't get sick or have accidents.

Hope this makes sense.

I don't think I misunderstood the economics. She wouldn't be taxed more for choosing not to use a public service, but rather for choosing to use a private service.

Your last example on the other hand is at best incomprehensible and at worst disingenuous.

A more accurate comparison would be: if someone who doesn't often get sick or have accidents and one days does and needs medical treatment, and chooses to seek that treatment from a private provider which incurs taxation. That's a choice. But it's not being taxed for choosing not to use the publicly funded service.

Maybe the whole cheering on the state school middle class parents will stop after Labour has been established?

looks like Labour may be planning to redistribute council taxes from the wealthiest areas to the poorest and putting the children from the poorest backgrounds ahead of them in school queues. .

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/28/labour-force-middle-classes-back-queue-public-services/

hopefully that also means that they will revisit school places at all natural moving points (11+), 6th form etc. so living just next to a wonderful school will count for nothing if children from lower income families wants to go there.

maybe this will make also all those parent try to level up all schools (as it has been argued that the private school parents will)?

Looking online, a total family income of 60k per year for the entire family puts you in the top 40% in the country. Lots of people ahead in the school queues but still enough at the back to make an impact overall?

Joint income of 80k (two adult household) puts you the top 20% of the country….

“hopefully that also means that they will revisit school places at all natural moving points (11+), 6th form etc. so living just next to a wonderful school will count for nothing if children from lower income families wants to go there.“

The world has moved on. Kids only learn a small proportion of what they actually know and how they behave in school. Most of it is learned at home, especially in a technological age. And home schooling is still legal in this country. All that would happen if you force middle class people to send DCs to worse state schools is that those middle class people, now mainly working from home, will only let their kids attend 80% of the time so they can plug the gaps at home.

And Covid is the prime live case study for precisely this. My DC did not go backwards during Covid, they went forward immensely. They talk very fondly of this time period at home. That is what educational privilege is - the level of education and wealth of the household, including emotional health. Nought any Government can do about that. The privileged will always be fine in the end.

“Joint income of 80k (two adult household) puts you the top 20% of the country….“

We all know now that income means pretty much zilch anymore. Wealth, inheritances coming, where you live and exact cost of living, job opportunities, access to services etc etc - all equally important markers.

Anyone going on about privilege based on income alone is very backwards.

I still think it is an interesting proposition, this is with regards to services / education for the weakest in society. So what is middle class parents are holding their children off part of the time - really their choice.

Given the support here for VAT on private schools I thought posters would be in favour of these proposals?

@HooverIsAlwaysBroken - research shows that the middle classes already get better access to services by virtue of being middle class. Look at how poorer black women, in particular, have higher mortality rates whilst giving birth. I bet if you looked at who still has an NHS dentist you would find lots of middle class people. Wealth and education helps you navigate the “system”.

I am not in support of either VAT on private schools nor any types of too much interference. But I do think that the current catchment based system is a bit ludicrous and that it would be better and less stressful actually for all, if it were managed better. If you were to remove choice of schools completely, however, people with means would still seek to move to an overall richer part of the country and the end effect would be similar. These types of parents would also lobby for top sets etc so I can’t see much changing, however much anybody thinks they can reset the system,

In have 3 dc - hence the 21k per school year - I am confused as to why you are confused.

Parents who send their kids to private save the country a fortune already.

Labour portray them as posh or rich, whereas many of them sacrifice to give their kids the best start they can. Not everyone wants to or can do this, but there's nothing wrong with those that do.

It's the politics of envy being encouraged by Labour, but basically those who choose to send their kids to private should be thanked for freeing up tax for the state sector.

No no no. Not again. They don't sacrifice; they make choices. Stop with the hyperbole. And here's an idea - if the parents with the most clout went to state schools perhaps the government might invest a bit more.
Again, I really don't mind if you make the choice. it is yours to make. But stop with the 'we're saving the country a fortune' nonsense. It really doesn't help your case and is exactly the sort of comment which (understandably) pisses off the people who really do have to make sacrifices.

And to be clear, I'm not one of those people, so no envy of people with money (I'm one of them!). I just cannot abide your sort of narrative

I literally could not agree more. The majority of those using private schools are often is the same income bracket as those baying for their closure. They are not in the same bracket as the super rich and the two should be treated independently.

The super rich, to whom this VAT addition is of zero consequence whatsoever, are the ones who can make a significant contribution to the UK fiscal pot

I guess you're replying to me. It wasn't clear in your first message. And the idea that the country somehow owes you that money doesn't make sense to me. But I don't think we're getting anywhere.

I will try one last time. I pay taxes, I am a net contributor (of course this may change but currently that is just fact not a moral judgement of anyone). I do not currently 'use' the £21k pot of state money I could 'use' by sending my 3 dc to state school. At 20% VAT on my current schools fees x 3 I will be using that money and sending them to state schools. So the state has lost money and gained fuck all. Stupid policy aimed to be divisive.

People not taking up state school places doesn't mean you've 'saved' your council X amount of money. It doesn't work that way,

And the reason I know this is that when I was going to tribunal to get specialist placements for my disabled dd, my solicitor informed me that you weren't able to compare private placements with state placements as the latter had 'zero' cost.

@Shambles123 ,

‘At 20% VAT on my current schools fees x 3 I will be using that money and sending them to state schools. So the state has lost money and gained fuck all. Stupid policy aimed to be divisive.’

Except it doesn’t really work quite that way. Your £21,000 is the cost but, against that, you have saves £75,000 per annum (give or take).

If you spent all of it on a Vatable items, that would generate £15,000 in taxes. If you invest in shares, you will pay income tax at your highest rate on the dividends and CGT when you sell them. Unless you either move offshore or deliberately waste the money by burning it or putting it under your bed, that will generate tax. So it may be a net loss, but far less than £21,000.

Pensions.

Change job.

Not £75k to be pedantic.