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.

Good to see ideas being put forward on raising the quality of state education beyond what is being proposed by Labour.

I honestly believe many parents sending their children to private schools would not do so if there was a suitable state option. I recognise the privilege in them even having the option to do so (before anyone accuses me of not reading the room).

But we shouldn't have to be making these decisions. State schools should be great, just like they are in Finland.

Yes, state schools should be great but nobody would be prepared to pay Finnish levels of taxation to pay for them.

Adding VAT to private school fees was a pledge Labour made before the election. They've not even hinted they'd add it to university fees as well. It's simply "slippery slope" fear-mongering.

@thefireplace

‘Won't be a 20% increase, schools have many levers to pull to reduce how much is passed on to parents.’

Where do you get your information from? My children’s school are adding it on fully if it comes in. (Well technically all schools will have to add it on fully, but some will reduce their fees to make the hit less) but the governors at our school have sent a letter saying they can’t absorb the cost (it’s charity rather than profitable) so they will add it on in full and keep the fees the same.

I think it’s best to not make sweeping statements . I would accept the case if you worked for the independent school body and had facts to back this up. As someone with her skin very much in the game, most schools behind the scenes are looking wether they can absorb some costs and others have categorically said no.

No… it means that those left at private schools are the “wealthier” ones that can afford it. If others are priced out and the VAT is added or so called “luxury tax” which you lot are calling it then private school will only be attainable by the very wealthy. Therefore private school will become a thing of the very wealthy and bursaries will also be cut meaning less means-tested places too.

I can tell you directly, from looking at 5 schools for DC (and creating a forum on this) that the 20% will be passed on from every single school. Maybe not imminently as they can claim back some VAT on capital expenditure or have some reserves but VAT be completely passed on within in the next 5 years at the majority. It’s a common misbelief that every private school is profitable, a lot are closing down or in debt.

You sound just like someone who went to a private school themselves. Where else can our children learn that level of entitlement?
If you’re so bothered that costs are going up, just work harder.

I don't think all private schools are wealthy and I'm aware plenty are struggling. But the viability of schools isn't a reason not to charge VAT on fees.

Similarly, the risk of SEN places isn't a reason. Not wishing to be heartless on that, at all. A pp said VAT wouldn't be charges if an EHCP is in place and I'm supportive of that.

But all this nimbyism and whataboutery is not a reason not to charge fees.

If the VAT on fees doesn't lead to a measurable improvement in state schools, would it bother you?

So you can base your assumptions you’re making on private school parents on facts , here’s our position -

-We have 3 children in private school.
-Our school have said they can’t absorb the VAT if it comes in so will be adding on the full 20% and we can’t afford it to pay it.
-We’ve now bought a house in a lovely village with a state free Grammar school and the children will be moving there and we are lucky we will be applying in the transition years so they will get a place.
-The money we save will be put into our pensions and saved for our children to have house deposits or to pay university fees so they have no debt. We have made a conscious decision to not spend it on stuff so it won’t be going into the economy on short term things.

We’re feeling quite happy with our decision. We weren’t in a position to move from the city we lived in before (due to hospital jobs) and the state schools didn’t offer the wrap around we needed to do our NHS dr shifts, so we chose private education. Now we can move to a lovely village / town we’ve always wanted to live in and we get free education, and have moved from NHS to private hospital work so we no longer need to do the shifts we did in the NHS.

Exactly, people choose private schools because they want the very best well rounded education for their children.

I don’t think any child should have to be pulled out of school if they are happy and doing well, regardless of the reasoning.

Yes and resent the implementation that just because we still agree that we must not understand the issues.

Well, possible, then. We used to be able to give HE students grants and their fees were paid. For equality's sake we ought to go back to that. Which I know is not to the point!

@Grammarnut I don't disagree but we'd have to ditch the Tony Blair experiment of 50% going to university. That is the main cause of fees being introduced in the first place.

Yes I am aware

Private schools are businesses

It’s for businesses to look after their customers not for the general public to subsidise

this isn’t new news to them they have had time to prepare

No 1: Yes. It's not about saving a tiny amount of money for the government, it's about reducing inequality. All children should have equal opportunity in education.

No 2: Yes. We left the EU following Brexit so the UK government can make this decision.

I am aware. We probably do not need 50% of people going to university (it was one of Blair's 'reduce unemployment' scams). Many - my DS, for example - would have been better doing something else.

The state sector needs to step up anyway, but do you actually think ever will?!

Actually no… a lot are charities not businesses and don’t make oodles of profit like everybody seems to think..

‘Won't be a 20% increase, schools have many levers to pull to reduce how much is passed on to parents.’’

They absolutely do. They could also have NOT raised their fees up themselves by so much last year or for next year. Could freeze the for the year after.
Since they’re such nurturing places if education as many claim, why are they behaving like businesses trying to make money?

Might be time to make a few changes - increase class sizes, rent out facilities more, sell land or buildings. Perhaps partner with a sport association or similar.
One of our state schools leased some land to a cricket academy for under 18s benefitting the school in terms of rent and access to brilliant cricket facilities and training, and the academy is open to talented boys and girls from all over the city,
for free.

away to feck are they ‘charities’! Only in name as a way to avoid paying business rates.
They’re businesses because they charge for a service. They have paying clients.
Charities, as the name suggests, use funding to provide services for free or as close to free as they can get.

@TeenagersAngst No it wouldn't, I think money in to the Treasury is separate from the spending choices of each government department. I hope the DfE under the new government will be able to make sustainable improvements and I hope this, amongst other measures will provide funds to do so. But I don't think one directly contributes to the other.

Having charity status does not mean money isn’t floating about in the system ….

I also think the charitable status thing is an absolute red herring to this conversation. Some private schools are businesses doing the bare minimum to stay just on the right side of charity rules. Others are genuinely not for profit.

Loads of organisations qualify for charitable status, even though they aren't want one would classically regard as a charity.

The fees conversation can be had separately from the charity angle.

I’ve explained why it bothers me. Perhaps you should read my comment again more carefully this time.

Everyone is in a different position. Is it that hard to grasp? I don’t think anyone has said everyone can’t afford it, or everyone can afford it.

I can afford it. That doesn’t mean everyone else can. I don’t know how I can be any more clear.