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.

Sorry @ObelixtheGaul I just wanted to specify:

With all the talk about SEND, it's worth noting that children with severe SEN aren't in the nice little private schools with 15 in a class, because those schools won't take them.

If your idea of "severe" is based on how the disability affects those around a child, and not how it affects the child themselves, you might want to reflect on your starting point. My son is bright, kind, gentle and anxious. He also has to have an EOTAS as no school for his profile exists, and he has PTSD. Not "severe" because he doesn't attack other people, and he isn't non-verbal? He first talked of suicide at five.

My daughter is just as complex in profile - she had an EHCP at six. But she's in a nice little school with 15 in a class, and as I say, she's one of 4 in that class. I can link you to a lot of schools catering now to that profile because it's a need unmet in the state sector. It shouldn't be. We should have small scale state primaries and secondaries for this profile of child, and then the state wouldn't be paying £100,000 a year to send them to the private chain SEMHs when they reach KS3 and KS4 and are broken. But nobody's building that half-way house sort of school, so LAs and parents alike are sending them to small indies. I think five kids with EHCPs and at least a dozen more with similar scale needs, in a school of fewer than 300, is higher than many state primaries.

We need state primaries for neurodivergent kids that have small classes and are in calm environments, with plan walls and low noise/light etc. It would be a lot better than fishing out broken teenagers - it would lower the cost in every sense of "cost". But nobody is doing it.

I’m confused with your response-
I have no problem with VAT being added - never said I did. Where did I state that? Happy to pay it , if I could afford it. We can’t so we’ve made lifestyle decisions. That is a consequence but we have no problem it being added on or any problem moving to state schools. I went to state schools. The school the children are moving to is very similar to where we would have paid for them to go so we’re all happy.

Unsure why you think I’m seeing it as a kind of punishment - that’s bizzare and what you’ve construed and insinuated based on your beliefs not mine.

The relevance of our jobs was that we needed flexi boarding for when we both do night shifts in hospital in the city. We will now be working normal hours in the day moving into private medicine, so we can leave the city and move out- and golly we are excited! 20 years of NHS work and living close by and being on call to now a life in a village and no school fees.

And yes - you might find it hard to believe but those of us who can’t afford the 20% have had to make decisions and plan. Maybe we’re not as well off as you are to afford a 20% increase in education for our 3 children. But I don’t need you to believe us - my life is nothing to do with yours!

Thats isn't what I said. My question was how much in reality this will mean per child, what change is expected and how will it be assessed whether it is effective. I read somewhere that money raised vs what it will cost - it will translate to schools getting an extra tenner per child per year, and that is if the money raised from the VAT is ringfenced for state schools, there hasn't been any guarantees that it is. Do you think that am extra £10 will make a meaningful improvement to your child's education?

My concern is that it is being billed as a 'magic bullet' when I don't think we will see much impact from it.

But to answer your question - I don't think amount of money from the government always directly relates to outcomes. My girls state school has lowish numbers so lower funding, higher than average SEN and lots low income families. And fantastic outcomes due to a laser focused head who places very clear expectations on families of what she expects from them. Don't do what you are expected, you get a phone call politely but firmly telling you to do better. Genuinely struggling, she gets you help.
Other local schools with higher income, lower SEN, more affluent families get much poorer results.

Why are you labouring such a moot point? Especially when you've completely missed the crux of it?

There is no 'reason' why 'working class people should (have to) care that rich people might have to pay a bit more tax on a luxury... because we're not talking about RICH people.

We're talking about families on modest incomes - so not rich by any means - who are perhaps going without certain things, in order to be able to pay for their child to have a private education, who now won't be able to afford it. Those people - ones just like you and me. I dunno, guess I just have empathy.

And, on that, this isn't about 'women being nice', it's about all PEOPLE being nice, something we should all aspire to.
If you don't think so, that says a LOT more about you than it does about me!

Hope that helps.

Maybe because they are terrible schools! We have under subscribed schools locally, you wouldn't send your dog there. Meanwhile the others could be filled two times over. You cannot fill underperforming schools by force. Also, they are not necessarily in the right areas to meet population need.

Nobody thinks it is a "magic bullet". It doesn't have to raise all the money required to be worth doing. Any increase in funding to state schools will help state schools.

And yet these are the schools that many have to send their children (Children not Dogs FFS have a bloody word with yourself over your disgusting language) They have no choice.

Wealthier parents can chose to move to better catchment areas or opt for private schools. Wealthier parents have choices that poorer parents do not.

These are the schools that your VAT will pay to improve.

Only a well off person would argue that families who can afford private school fees are on "modest incomes" and are going without things that the rest of the population enjoy to pay them. What exactly do you think the majority of the state school parents spend money on that private school parents cannot afford?

No that didn't help at all actually. I haven't missed the point of anything. I guess your definition of modest is different to mine.

I think if you're paying private school fees, considering average wages, you aren't on a "modest" income. You're on a high income, therefore - i don't care if you get taxed on your choices.

Who are you to instruct people how to reply? Entitled and obnoxious.

No no no, you misunderstand. If putting VAT on private schools won't instantly solve every single problem in state education, the NHS, potholes in the road, climate change and women's clothing not having enough pockets, then it will be completely and utterly pointless and should be abandoned.

If it doesn’t bring in anything or is a negative it’s pretty far from magic anything

We’ll see how behaviour pans out after the 20% hike

What a strange thought process... people aspire to be on high incomes, don't they?

Why so much derision towards them? Just odd...

But perfectly ok for the less well off to send their children too?

The £8 billion that 5 years of this policy will raise, could be used to improve these badly performing schools? provide early intervention centres to improve parenting?

Or we do nothing and allow generation after generation of children to under perform and in some cases just become a burden on the state for their allotted time on this earth.

I'm sorry but why is it ME having to defend my position?

I think it's unfair that families who aren't 'rolling in it' will soon have to pay VAT on private school fees that could price them out of being able to send their child to that school.

I know several such families and I don't need to explain anything. It's very simple: I care. You don't. The End.

@KnittedCardi "s! We have under subscribed schools locally, you wouldn't send your dog there"

I think you just said the quiet bit out loud....

Right. You know how often people say this shit about good state schools?
A lot. An awful lot.

So you’ll need to find the extra cash then won’t you? Strive that little bit harder.

We're talking about families on modest incomes

I'm not sure I agree we're talking about families on a 'modest' income - but I guess that depends what your definition of modest is. Certainly I think that families would have to be earning substantially more than the average income to be able to afford to send a child to private school. Our nearest private school charges over £30000 per year for day pupils- and that's before uniform/music lessons/lunch/trips etc. It's about the same as the take-home pay of someone on an 'average' wage.

Everyone has to make decisions about how they spend their money. We're charged VAT on all sort of 'essentials' including some food, fuel, clothes etc. I don't really see why private school fees should be any different, when there are other options available. It is a luxury to be able to send your child to private school - and it's a luxury that most can't afford.

But there are no other items on the labour manifesto around improving schools, so it does feel very much like they are relying on this, if this isnt going to raise 'all the money needed' then what is? Seeing as we have been promised no tax rises across this parliament. And there is an increased teacher pay (well deserved) coming which will probably more than swallow up this money.

There is a very vague 'extra 6,500' specialist teachers - but no idea on where they will come from as specialist implies they are not new grads, so probably won't happen. And a review of the ofsted system, which again isn't going to have any impact short- medium term as most schools are only inspected about every 4 years.

'Improve' education 'increased funding. It's all so woolly, probably on purpose as they can't fail to acheive an objective if no clear measurable objective is set in the first place. Targets should be SMART
Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Realistic
Timed

I don't think this policy ticks any of those boxes!

@Shaketherombooga "
Right. You know how often people say this shit about good state schools?
A lot. An awful lot."

Yes, I do know.

Academies, voluntary aided schools and foundation schools also receive the relief - do you think that should be abolished too?

Do you think universities should also have 20% VAT slapped on their fees, as they are selective and charge students a fee?

It’s a start.They’ve been in power 3 weeks. They’re also looking at the curriculum and putting a focus on MH provision in schools. Both long overdue.I think it’s a great start and more than the Tories ever did. I’m fed up with the Tory, huge, ill thought out promises that were just headline stealers, crap, damaging, cost £££££ and never happened. I’d far rather labour took their time and thought out policies in a measured fashion.

But are schools which are underperforming, struggling solely because of lack of funding or due to something else? All schools receive similar funding, but lots of schools are thriving, with very mixed catchment, high SEN etc. Why, with the same amount of funding, and a similar cohort, do some schools do so much better than others? .

It's like the NHS, it receives the highest funding ever, and is performing worse than ever. Throwing more money isn't going to automatically produce better outcomes.

In the interests of factual accuracy only the wealthiest students pay a fee to go to university. The vast majority of English students pay a regressive graduate tax.

I think though we can agree that the experiment from 2010 of defunding schools and other public services have demonstrably led to worse services, so perhaps there is a link between funding and the service provided?