I genuinely want pro-VAT people to answer these two questions

[Seenandheard]

(1) Do you realise that a private school child saves the tax payer/government thousands of pounds per year by not taking up a space in state school? Not to mention the space in the classroom/competition for places? (Do you care about this point or gloss over it in your minds?!)

(2) Do ypu realise that taxing education is illegal in the EU?

Yes or no to both points, please.

I do not want reams of uninformed angry opinions. I don't want this to turn into a multi page thread/bun fight. I just want to understand whether people realise these two points, really, truly understand them. Because it seems to me that there is a mentality of "they're getting a tax break" (WRONG) or "they're taking something away from my child" (WRONG) or "they can afford it so they can spread their wealth a bit" (I'm not going into the fact that my family spend more on taxes than Nordic countries, who have a far, far higher standard of living. We give so much, get almost nothing in return- but apparently we need to give more. More. More.)

I think my deep rooted anger here is to do with people's attitudes and uninformed opinions more than the policy itself. I need to know if people are aware of the facts.

Private schools are no guarantee of success in the way many would judge that, based on salary. I went to a failing state secondary, came out with all A's have a very successful career. My brother went to a small private secondary on a partial bursary as he was being brutally beaten up most days in his state secondary, school wouldn't help and his mental health was very poor. Not a rich family, but a desperate one, my mum did a 2nd job at night once my Dad was home , to pay the fees. My brother now works in a minimum wage job, has no savings, but is happy. Not your typical private school child as mumsnet would like to portray it, bit actually typical of many many private school children in the real world.
Some parents turn to private in desperation, not to acheive a fabulous career or high grades, but to protect their child. And it's these families that this policy with punish, not the very rich ones.

Yes and yes.

State schools are closing due to falling roll numbers around here, I’d have no problem with a 7% increase in intake.

We left the EU some time ago and aren’t likely to rejoin in the next decade if ever, so no idea why you think this is relevant.

1 - sort of, yes. But if you’re saying schools will have to get thousands of pounds of funding for every private school student they take on, this sounds like a great result and is more persuasive for a pro VAT argument.

2 - yes and limitation on VAT laws was one of the reasons for my Brexit vote.

And in my peer group a lot of people could send their kids to private school (and could probably afford to with VAT) but choose not to as to not perpetuate the social inequality that private schools inherently promote, so my pro VAT (or rather VAT indifference) is founded on that basis.

Don’t have any kids at private school. So I won’t be paying any VAT, sorry to disappoint!

@Whatafustercluck

"Some parents turn to private in desperation, not to acheive a fabulous career or high grades, but to protect their child. And it's these families that this policy with punish, not the very rich ones."

Exactly this. The very rich ones won't care about a few thousand pounds a year extra. There are huge amounts of parents who aren't very rich though. Those with immediate access to large capital sums are pre-paying fees and may well avoid the VAT anyway (it's unclear at the moment, but there is a possibility pre-paying may work). Those families scrimping and saving don't have that option.

There’s too many people trying to seem posher than they are to cover up their own insecurities and hang ups about social positioning.

Do people really think most people send their kids to private school to look ‘posh’? The ignorance is astonishing! Just because that was your mum’s motivation doesn’t mean it was for everyone. Educate yourself. Not everyone is a Hyacinth Bucket.

"We left the EU some time ago and aren’t likely to rejoin in the next decade if ever, so no idea why you think this is relevant."

It's relevant because Starmer has said he has no desire to diverge from the EU. Taxing education does exactly this.

@Didimum Well, that’s ok then. As long as they don’t segregate AS severely it’s all tickety boo.

The real issue is inequality in the state sector which will not be solved by this policy.

But as this thread shows, everyone is so busy hating the private school parents that no-one has thought to check. Labour should hang their heads in shame for being disingenuous and divisive. Their politicians all performed terribly during the campaign when asked about this policy which shows how insubstantial it is.

This thread is so arrogant.

Across all sectors the privately educated are massively over represented. Social
mobility is incredibly poor in this country.

We’ve just had an election and have a government with a big majority. This policy was made clear long belong said election.

People are allowed to agree with this policy and nobody has to answer anything.

I don’t think there is a single person who thinks this policy alone will fix the issues within the education system nor anyone who thinks the issues are solely down to finances. However, it is undeniable that alongside structural and policy changes increased finances are needed for state education. Money alone won’t fix things, but I think it is disingenuous to suggest more money isn’t needed or helpful. Is 0.5% or 1% enough? No, but it is a start & better than nothing.

“Labour should hang their heads in shame for being disingenuous and divisive.”

Seriously you’re saying that after 14 years of a Tory government. 😂😂😂Labour have just had a landslide victory. The UK isn’t MC MN and it’s a
pretty popular policy that was made very clear for quite some time before the election.

1. yes i understand the theoretical position but your view is far too simple.

The government funds a hell of a lot of teacher training costs, not the private sector, only for a chunk of those teachers not to stay teaching in state.

A hell of a lot of the pupils in uk private & boarding schools are from overseas and cannot switch into a uk state education.

In the next 5-10 years a birth cohort is coming through with much lower numbers. This means underfilled state schools with empty places, the least cost efficient way to run schools. It is not an issue if lots of children move from private to state. There is room and the fixed costs of teachers and buildings will not really be impacted.

Add in that these parents are the better off in society, and clearly value education, and it is more likely they will a) contribute to the school financially b) support their children's learning so resulting in better results

These things generally improve state schools for everyone. A higher proportion of more engaged and supportive parents pushes up standards.

2. yes i am aware but we left the EU. Germany has strict laws for how you can name your child and we aren't bound by those either.

Yes and yes. Hopefully that’s clear enough @Seenandheard.

@Curryle3af

"a landslide victory"

1 in 3 voters voted for the Labour Party. It's hardly a landslide victory. The number of seats won was large, but the share of the vote wasn't. 2 in 3 voters did not want a Labour government.

Where did I say they were tickety boo? I said I oppose them, would support their removal and I said I deliberately moved away from a grammar school heavy area.

I do not hate private school parents. Where have I said that? I haven’t. Perhaps you should stop accusing people of things they haven’t said. My sister in law sends her children to private school. My best friend also does. They are wonderful people. Their choices are just not my choices.

My DH is an economist. He also worked in the Treasury for 15 years. We understand the policy 👍

‘Exactly this. The very rich ones won't care about a few thousand pounds a year extra. There are huge amounts of parents who aren't very rich though. Those with immediate access to large capital sums are pre-paying fees and may well avoid the VAT anyway (it's unclear at the moment, but there is a possibility pre-paying may work). Those families scrimping and saving don't have that option.’

The problem is that those anti VAT arguments are based on an absolutely tiny percentage of children.

For instance, SEN. 12% of private school children are identified of having SEN, which is probably an overestimate of genuine need. If 20% of them, probably an overestimate again, need to leave, that is 2.4% of private school children. If 7% of pupils go to private schools, the total number of SEN pupils who will be disadvantaged by this policy is 0.17% of pupils overall or less than 2/1,000. This is not a reason to abandon a policy IF it genuinely raises a decent amount of money (as yet untested).

And for this 0.17%, they will still have better outcomes than the vast majority of similar pupils, as their parents will have £15,000 to £25,000 freed up to help their children in other ways,

The reality is the vast majority of private school parents are, by most people’s standards rich (top decile with median in top 5%); the majority of pupils go to medium size schools (mean secondary =about 400 pupils) and the majority 88%+ don’t have SEN.

You will never formulate any economic policy which isn’t ‘unfair’ on some.

My caveat, that I always make on these threads, is there seems to be an unseemly rush to bring the policy in, which does seem quite vengeful. Surely no politician wants to force a child to suddenly change schools. It should be phased in over the parliament, allowing parents and schools to gradually adjust.

This is an anecdote that is in no way backed up by facts and statistics. The anecdotal evidence you refer to equates to the tiniest proportion of private school children. Academic outcome is directly affected by how much your parents value education. Academic outcome and high salary employment/ ultimate wealth is directly affected by having heavily invested parents who are equally wealthy enough to send their children to private school. I too aced exams in an inner city comp, but I'm not naive enough to think that my experience is typical or that my earning potential is anything near as good as those who were privately educated. Those people will have the connections. Those people will have the unbridled supreme confidence in their abilities that you don't tend to find in state educated people.

Christ on a bike, stop whining about fees! It’s so f-ing dull now.

If it is so dull, why did you start a thread to gloat about the VAT a couple of days ago?!!

(2) Do ypu realise that taxing education is illegal in the EU?

Do you realise that this is completely irrelevant since we are not part of the EU anymore?

Yes or no to this point please.

That’s not entirely accurate. We don’t know what 40% of the electorate wanted because they couldn’t be bothered to vote. There was also a lot of tactical voting, ie people voted for the party most likely to defeat the Tory in their constituency in order to deliver a Labour government. It was absolutely a landslide victory.

It's not irrelevant. Starmer has said he doesn't want to diverge from the EU. Adding VAT on school fees does exactly that.

I’m pro VAT on private schools, also plan on privately educating my kids when they’re old enough.

1. Yes I am aware. I’m not particularly concerned about this point because I don’t believe a large number of parents who privately educate their children will decide not to do so because of VAT.

There will be a minority who can no longer afford it, but it is not going to lead to a vast surge of pupils entering the state school system.

Only 7% of children in the UK are privately educated in the first place. Even if half of those children came out of private education into the state system (and that is far in excess of the % who actually will) it would not break the state system.

2. Until there has been a judgment on the specific system intended to be implemented by the UK government from the ECHR, this is simply speculative. It may well be that the intended scheme falls foul of the law; if so, it will require to be modified or abandoned. Alternatively, the ECHR may take the view that the specific scheme proposed does not breach any human rights, or they may decide that there is a breach but that it is justified by the broader aims of the policy. We shall see.

The UK charging VAT on school fees won’t impact the EU in the slightest. We can still carry on in the same direction with variations in routes that matter. This policy isn’t even one of them. It impacts the EU even less than it does the vast majority of the UK.

Since you mention the EU. I personally would prefer us to still be in the EU however we’re not. I along with half the country had to suck up a result I didn’t like. I have moved on and am now focusing on the very small positives of Brexit which are few and far between. Being able to charge VAT on private education is one such positive.

A clear illustration of how smart the Labour campaign was, maximising the efficiency of the votes for them.

Such intelligence in government should lead to some excellent policies.

(1) Do you realise that a private school child saves the tax payer/government thousands of pounds per year by not taking up a space in state school? Not to mention the space in the classroom/competition for places? (Do you care about this point or gloss over it in your minds?!)

I don’t think you quite understand how large-scale education works. Somehow I doubt there are LEA Finance Directors sitting with their heads in their hands saying “Lottie Farringdon’s parents have pulled her out of Eden Hills - our budget is going to be in tatters?!”

Private education got more expensive - it didn’t get banned.

(2) Do ypu realise that taxing education is illegal in the EU?

Do you realise the UK has left the EU? It may have been mentioned in the news once or twice?