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.

In most cases that government pay that fee for students to enrol on the course, and then students pay that back when they are earning as what is a very regressive graduate tax.

Key difference - there is no distinction between private and public universities. So that would mean 100% of university students paying VAT.

By contrast, there is an alternative to private schools. So parents sending their kids specifically to private schools are by definition making a choice.

1. Yes. But the price is the price - if you can't afford it, don't buy it. You don't expect your new Tesla to be VAT exempt do you? or do you....Private schools will still retain benefits of having "charitable status", though personally I would like to take that away too. Bring your drive and ambition for your child to the state sector, and save your money for a house deposit for them instead as they will definitely benefit from that, whereas it's uncertain whether they will benefit from being in a private school.
2. No, but as others have said, not relevant now that we're not in the EU

@thefireplace my DC's school surveyed the parents and there was an overwhelming desire not to reduce spend per pupil, we would rather a small increase than reduce the quality of the children's experience.

I can't quite believe the amount of anger and bitterness this matter has caused given that most people on this thread (and other very similar ones) won't be affected. Most posters aren't private school parents or have any understanding of what private schools offer or of the children who attend, and state schools won't see any meaningful benefit even if VAT of 30% was added to the fees.

OP your request for non angry comments is worded in rather an angry and dictatorial way 😂

I said earlier that Labour has performed a PR masterstroke with this policy. It's like taxing landlords. Literally everyone loves the idea of it.

All universities are selective and charge fees, it doesn't matter whether they are run by the state or privately. They act the same, they should be treated the same.

Sending so many students to university was also a choice; a political one. The target of 50% of school leavers to attend university was initially brought in to reduce unemployment figures; it was cheaper to subsidise their university fees than to pay them unemployment benefits, and it was hoped that in the longer term they would be more likely to work and contribute more financially than become benefit-dependent. Mixed results.

University is higher education which is different to school. You don't have to go to university. My DMIL was a midwife who trained in a hospital. Never saw the inside of a uni. We're obsessed with university education to the detriment of many trades and other skills.

Well i was answering the point made that funding isn't the only answer.... You want to keep your v high funding per pupil but don't want other pupils to receive this extra.

Almost all these threads are started by people who are wealthy enough to send their kids to a private school but are now complaining & moaning very loudly about the proposed increases.

£8 billion raised over 5 years will make a difference, ridiculous to suggest it won't.

@User47585335 ,

‘my DC's school surveyed the parents and there was an overwhelming desire not to reduce spend per pupil, we would rather a small increase than reduce the quality of the children's experience. ‘

This is the fatal weakness of a lot of private schools. They are basically selling a product and love customer feedback. The problem is that what parents think children need and what they actually need aren’t the same thing. Parent voice holds far too much sway.

Parents, fairly obviously, try to give their children the experience that they, as adults would enjoy, which is ‘country club’ chic combined with spoon feeding check list education (which does lead to great GCSE results).

It all seems lovely but totally fails to build resilience which is why, despite ‘well-being’ being front, middle and back of private school prospectuses, they still end up with immense issues in mental health, eating disorders and perfectionism. And why, after a great set of A levels, private school pupils often fail to perform at uni up to the same level (state school pupils with the same grades do demonstrably better at uni).

Resilience is built by allowing children to fail and recover from failure, not never allowing them to fail.

The average around here is between £8000-£10000 per term (secondary, it is cheaper for primary), and I am not in a particularly wealthy part of the country.

Ah, yes, if only the SAHM mums went back to work! Or part-timers stepped up!
Then they could all afford private education for perhaps, one child. Just pick their favourite child, and they can go.

There's a huge difference between the cost of private nurseries, and the cost of private education. Many parents will only send one child at a time to nursery, for perhaps 3 years at a time. Or they might do only a couple of days at nursery, while juggling childcare with another parent/grandparent/friend to keep costs down. Can't do any of this with private education.

Many parents at private school are not on enormous salaries. They often have 2 parents working full time. I understand that, but for those on a modest (average?) salary, two full time salaries is still not going to be enough.

Private education is a luxury, however you juggle the figures. I'm not against it, if that's how people choose to spend their money (for those that have enough), but it is a luxury that is beyond many people (even those with two working parents).

@Newbutoldfather thank you for proving my point

So who pays for the schools existence, do you want ot pay for them in your tax ? Do you apply the same to other charities, ever had a look at Oxfams accounts, or Greenpeace, or any of thr cancer charities?

By your answer I am 100% sure it's nope.

After my daughter’s Classics teacher in a state 6th form being poached and bribed with a pay rise and masters paid for by the Private school in the same town, I’m afraid I have little sympathy. It’s a niche subject, it was the ONLY state access to that subject in about 5 counties and now there’s none.

If you can afford private school, you can afford the VAT. My family are obviously not innately driven enough, or determined, and both working in public services we should scold ourselves for our shiftless working class lack of effort to make enough money to house, feed ourselves, heat our home AND pay for private schooling.

If a sense of resigned injustice is jealousy, so be it. Don’t tell me ‘but we work hard’. We bloody work hard, and worked hard to become qualified in what we do. What we don’t have is any leg ups from family, or inheritances, of help in any way shape or form from anyone. Stop telling everyone ‘we worked hard’ and ‘we’re not wealthy’ and you might get a smidge of understanding (although having to pay more for schooling you could get from the state is a bit fucking rich when some people have to choose between heat or eat. If you truly don’t get that….what the hell is wrong with you?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to put VAT on their foreign holidays?

You lost me at "do you realise" OP. So patronising.

Anyway VAT and income tax bring in more revenue than any other taxes.

We need money to invest in our public services. Labour straitjacketed itself by saying it would not increase income tax or VAT so it has to find other sources of revenue, such as applying VAT to new items.

Sorry, not sure I'm clear here on what you're saying. Are you saying that if in a years' time after the VAT on fees policy has been introduced, and there were no discernible improvements in state schools, this wouldn't bother you?

Quoting @TeenagersAngst 's reply to me.

Correct. I think income and expenditure are two different things. As I said originally, I went to a private school and I don't have anything against them. But from a principled standpoint, I think it's fair to levy VAT on fees.

Totally separately, I hope the new government improves state education. There needs to be a long term systemic fixes in recruitment, retention, infrastructure and behaviour. I'm not linking the VAT directly to that hope.
(And expecting meaningful results within a year is unrealistic).

It is a luxury to be able to send your child to private school - and it's a luxury that most can't afford.

Oh, I agree. There's absolutely no need for the kind of nastiness towards those people that we're witnessing on this thread, though.

It absolutely reeks of jealousy, despite how much someone might try and convince us otherwise. And that is such an ugly trait.

@perfectstorm it's all so difficult. One thing I have become aware of is how much, in trying to be all things to all men, we end up pleasing nobody.

I'd like to see an end to the State academies. From my experience, cost-cutting is their mantra and it's always the most vulnerable that suffer, because they seem hell-bent on removing as many TAs as possible, whilst the CEO is on £250,000 which the state pays for. It's just added an unnecessary extra layer of 'management'.

I'd like to see some standardisation in core subjects so we aren't having to constantly re-train teachers when they move to a school that doesn't use Read Write Inc/White Rose/Whatever. Pick one, roll it out across the state system.

When it comes to SEND, State schools that have dedicated, staffed hubs which enable children to access classes but also have another space to be in tailored for their needs works well. It means children aren't cut off from their peers altogether, can attend school all day but have somewhere to go when they struggle in lessons. Unfortunately, as part of cost-cutting, these sorts of facilities are often the first to go.

Private schools get NO funding from the government at all and nearly all provide significant bursary fully funded places and scholarships to children who couldn’t otherwise afford such a place - hence why they have charitable status. Excluding the very top echelons of private schools eg Eton - the majority of private schools do not make money- they operate on a largely break even policy

Even according to labours best estimate - one extra teacher per school and their calculations don’t take into account the significant number of private schools that will close as a result of the policy.

I agree that there is some nastiness, born of jealousy. And that's not ok.
But, on the other hand, there is also a lack of understanding by some that private school is beyond the reach of many (most?) people. There are quite a few comments indicating that people could send their children to private school if they just worked more/made more sacrifices. To me, this shows a complete lack of understanding as to what life is like for many families, especially now with the COL crisis.

Luckily (and as is often the case with mumsnet) I know no-one IRL who has this attitude, even amongst my wealthier/school fee paying friends.

"Private schools get NO funding from the government at all and nearly all provide significant bursary fully funded places and scholarships to children who couldn’t otherwise afford such a place - hence why they have charitable status. Excluding the very top echelons of private schools eg Eton - the majority of private schools do not make money- they operate on a largely break even policy"

@joles12 I think it's the other way around. They are scrabbling to do the minimum-cost maximum-visibility actions they can to sustain and protect their charitable status. They talk a good game about it, but let's not kid ourselves it's altruistic.

Sorry I'm in the crappy app and had a bold fail. The first paragraph above was a quote.

I agree. The "charitable activities" that our local private schools engage in amount to little more than clever marketing opportunities.