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.

I’ll turn your argument back at you - as you’ve put your own SEN child through private school you’ve no shits to give on the sate of SEND education for the rest of the children who’s parents weren’t able to do that or the children who’s SEN school fees would have been £60-£90k a year and utterly unaffordable for almost all of us.

Next up, they should lose their charitable statuses, where held. They're about as charitable as any other private members club (ie not charitable at all).

That’s a fair question. I guess the answer is in state schools in affluent areas - they are often really good schools. This is driven in itself by a certain demographic of parent sending their kid there and demanding (rightly) high quality education.

You hear of it all the time - people who can afford to moving to areas with “good” schools, pushing the property prices up, the school improves further with a catchment of children with highly (sometimes overly!) engaged parents, and it just becomes a cycle. No one “normal” can afford to live in the catchment anymore and the school ends up with a private school demographic but is free to attend.

the flip side is families like you, lower middle class and could afford private school if they were very careful with money (yes, this is still rich because most families have to be very careful with money to afford food and heating, not education). They take their children out of the state sector and pay for them to go private. Thus leaving the school with a weighted demographic of children from less advantaged backgrounds.

You'd combat this with automatically allocated school places, with far smaller catchments, and boundaries drawn to include a broad spectrum of households (private/rented/lovely mansions/small flats). Every kid would attend a school with a roughly the same pupil demographic. All schools receive the same basic funding per pupil with the additional pupil premium for those with greater needs as currently is. The schools would all become more equal.

the bit that private school parents, like you, don’t seem to understand is that people like me DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

I do not care that YOU scrimp and save to send your kid to private school because the school near you is shit. There is inequality because YOU do this.

If they abolished private schools tomorrow, would there be short term issues? Sure. But long term it would be best for society.

Btw we could afford to send our kid to private school but won’t, because we fundamentally disagree with it.

@Ijngfcbjh Sir Keir's children benefited from attending Eleanor Palmer Primary School, in Camden, North London, where the catchment area was recently down to just 182 yards. Admission to the school, where his wife Victoria was a governor, has been described as 'selection by house price', because properties nearby sell for in excess of £2 million.

Sorry to be a broken record, but can I just say again that VAT is not a ‘luxury tax’ it is a sales tax. Unless for example, you consider the clothes you are wearing or your cooker a luxury.
My view is not underpinned by class envy or animosity. I just think it is equitable that VAT is applicable to private education as it is to the vast majority of goods and services in the UK.

I have been anti-VAT on private schooling because of my understanding the 'education' in general is exempt and therefore University is exempt. Could you explain why VAT can be charged on private school fees but could not be charged on Uni fees? Thank you!

I wonder if you have a similar objection to the parents who are able to buy their way into lovely state catchments and pretend that they are faux unprivileged?

Buying privilege seems to be OK on here, as long as it's under the radar.

Yes, but whilst the lack of SEND funding is a disgrace, it’s not @Tgjjl’s fault nor responsibility.

@allthemiddlechildrenoftheworld I may not send my children to private school, but I do know the difference between jealousy and envy. It appears you do not. Maybe you can get your privately-educated children to explain it to you?

The government can enact legislation that impacts on some aspects of education, but not others. If you follow the link I posted up thread you can see the complexities around food. Views will differ if it appropriate, but it is possible.

This. If they fall into that category then VAT is (should be) payable. End of.

I am a taxpayer who pays taxes regardless of which services I choose to use.

I consider it a necessity to have private healthcare ( a very close friend died due to NHS incompetence) however, I am more than happy to pay taxes to help fund the NHS. It is broken and needs fixing.

My kids all went to private schools for some of their education, but I was more than happy to pay taxes to help fund state education, and would have felt that VAT was part of the deal had it been required when they attended.

Your post smacks of entitlement. We all pay for services we don't/won't use. That is life.

You’re not going to win the battle on this issue on MN OP. They would rather fight for feckless parents to get the benefit cap removed on the two child rule. They’re gleeful that children at fee paying schools might ultimately have to integrate into our broken comprehensive system. And I’m not speaking as someone who has ever used private schooling - mine are young adults now, but I recognise that private schooling is beneficial for a lot of children, and should be made as easy as possible to access. It’s not just the super wealthy who pay for their children to go private, but many who go without holidays, and have to budget, to try give their children the best start in life. I’d bet many on here, if they could afford, would pay for private education.

No, but the fundamental principle of it is stupid. Simply because rather than focusing on this, they should focus on closing tax loopholes for the rich. At the end of the day, they won’t make much money from it because most of the richest parents paid for their fees now upfront before this measure is put in. If they did abolish private schools
tomorrow, it’s that it would take forever for the changes to be made like everything. And actually, no, I don’t breed inequality. If we had to send out child to shit state schools, we would home educate or leave.

It doesn’t matter. Apparently there is a valid case of discrimination there. Cant remember where I read it. They can’t make private schools add VAT on fees without making university fees be subject to the same thing. I

Ignore 'em all OP, there all jealous haterz. Your better then them are.

That was painful to write, and more painful to read.

And this is exactly what I mean by faux non-privilege.

They are very privileged, but it's deniable because it's a state school.

Starmer is worth millions.

But lottery systems have been shown not to work in practice. How do kids get to schools miles away if they don’t live in cities or well connected towns? Walking 2miles along country lanes to your nearest school is tough enough but when you’ve been allocated one that’s 5miles away…
Pupils from lower socioeconomic backgrounds simply won’t attend school. It’s tough enough getting many of these kids in before 10am when the school is 15min walk away. If they have to get two buses, it simply won’t happen.

Yes.
1 - This is simplistic. Education is a positional good ie what really matters is what position you are rather than how good you are at Chemistry, etc. The best person will get to the best uni, get the best job and so on. Those sending their kids to private schools are not saving the tax payer money - that is simplistic - the advantage they are buying their own children comes at a cost to wider society, with state schools dealing with a higher proportion of children with SEN or from challenging backgrounds, which impacts on everyone, both at school and afterwards. Those using private schools are buying a luxury good which is harmful to society, and like other luxury goods which are harmful to society, they should be taxed, and a lot more than 20% VAT too.
2 - This is the only benefit to our leaving the EU.

@Owlbookend I suspect that lack of understanding about VAT is at the heart of this. And i am baffled by many aspects of AT.

It does often seem to be a luxury tax (on sales) - why are plain biscuits not VATable but ones wholly or partially covered on chocolate are?

I thought VAT was a tax on goods where - literally - value has been added. So eggs, flour milk are not taxed as basic ingredients but ready made pancakes are taxed because the making of them has added value?

And yet biscuits are all 'made' of basic ingredients...even without chocolate.

So it does seem like a 'luxury' tax?

I doubt there will be a mass exodus.
I think much more likely at entry points (yr R, yr 3, yr 7 and yr 9) will have far fewer entrants. I think prep schools will be the first to go (except in grammar areas) as most are just breaking even, then the smaller private schools will disappear. The big famous schools will still be well subscribed.
I think they'll be a slightly higher proportion of parents home schooling kids who can't cope with mainstream, they'll either employ tutors or leave their work to tutor, but the numbers will still be tiny.

Posters on MN seem to think all private schools provide luxury education (not sure luxury and education isn't an oxymoron!) but I don't think any of our politicians went to a Steiner school did they?!
I genuinely think my kids have a more 'luxurious' education than their friends at the small private. My dc certainly have many more options for GCSEs and better facilities than their private compatriots.
For complete clarity I was sent to private and hated everything about it, it was about as far from luxurious and Malory towers or Hogwarts as you could get, my kids go to a non grammar state. The grammars in our area have almost identical results as the selective private schools. The bog standard states and non selective privates have very similar GCSE results. So I disagree that a private education means a better education, and quite frankly I find it slightly insulting towards my dc very good state school.
What does make a difference is; parent engagement and natural academic ability. The majority of grammar school kids will always do well because proportionally they'll have very engaged parents who value the best education, combined with being academically inclined.

If we really wanted a 'fair' educational system, we'd be devising a program of education that caters for children who struggle academically and become more disengaged as the classes become more academically challenging. These kids will never get a 4/5 or above, and for them doing practical subjects and just focusing on maths and English would be, much more effective than the current system.
I find it slightly depressing that over the last 100 years education still doesn't cater for the children who struggle the most, and parents have to fight tooth and nail to get an EHCP.
Again for transparency, my dd has asd. Whilst I fully support her, the reality is, she won't score higher than a 3 or 4 in her GCSEs, she simply isn't academically able. She has skills (she's incredible with sculpture) but the academic part of the art syllabus means she'll almost certainly only get a 4. if she gets a 3/4 across the board the fact that she's very skilled in sculpture won't help get a job. It's utterly depressing that for the majority of our unacademic kids their future lies in their yr 11 results...it's madness in fact!

I just think the whole private school debate means the real issues with education aren't being tackled. I genuinely couldn't give a toss about private education. But I do know 'sharpe elbowed parents' won't solve the state system; money raised will be the equivalent of a rain drop in the sea; few private schools are luxurious, and the education they provide is not much better than grammar schools (if you compare results) and non selective private schools have worse results than grammars.
I don't want the government to meddle with grammars either, what I want is the government to listen to those of us who use state school with non academic kids.

Yes I realise both of those things. I am a private school parent AND I am pro VAT. Both me and DH work full time and make sacrifices to afford private education I am still pro VAT its only fair, we were both state educated, we get it. I am really tired of the wealthy non-working mums at my DCs school (sorry it is 'mums' not 'parents') dropping the DC off in their porsches and Range Rovers, multiple foreign holidays a year then moaning all over the school whatsapp groups about how they shouldn't have to pay VAT. Sadly it has really affected my relationship with many of the other parents, I am struggling to see their point of view. Obviously I'd rather not pay VAT, but I feel lucky that I haven't had to so far.

Whose responsibility is it then? The government put in place policies that will help them get re elected. Less than 5% of school age children have an EHCP, who’s responsibility is it to fight for them? I promise you, most parents with children with SEND aren’t in any position to be fighting, they’re struggling to get through each day.

I believe we all have a social responsibility to fight for those less advantaged than ourselves. For those that can’t fight for themselves.

There is a choice on whether to send your children to private school and so VAT should be paid on it. Privately educated children dominate at top universities, they dominate in top professions. Children from state school can get exactly the same results at GCSE and A’level and still lose out on places at top universities. The UK is so strongly skewed in favour of those that have been educated privately that I’m utterly unbothered by a bit of VAT on the school fees.

We put man on the moon in the 60’s. Pretty sure any half-decent economist can work out how to evenly allocate school places.

Yh dnt listen to them babes. Every1s sneks arnd here- PM me hun ✌️