AIBU to think that Bridget Phillipson is exaggerating the level of middle-class support for VAT on school fees?

[TepidWatersOfManagedDecline]

Bridget Phillipson has been quoted as saying that the policy is supported by "middle-class parents in good professional jobs with housing costs who just can't afford that level of fee" and want "brilliant state schools". www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86wd1y7v2xo

Is this true, in your experience? Most middle-class parents with professional jobs who I’ve discussed this with think that it’s a spiteful policy (including those who don’t use the independent sector).

AIBU to think that Bridget Phillipson is exaggerating the level of support for the policy?

And is it a good thing for education generally, in your view, that we should become one of the only countries in the world to tax education? Is this going to improve our education sector in terms of our international competitiveness, do you think?

Yep and yep

Show us your workings on that one please!

Ok - so is it going to help if the parents pay VAT but the school stops doing that?

Especially if the amount raised from the VAT is so little as to do pretty much nothing for the state school’s funds?

Pupils at private schools aren’t costing the taxpayer a penny. The tax policy is not “propping” the schools up.

Most sensible people would agree that spending taxpayer money from this policy to fund breakfast for the children of millionaires is ridiculous.

At the moment, each of my children costs the taxpayer £0 for their education. If I moved them, it would cost the taxpayer £8k a year. There is no logic in penalising those saving the taxpayer thousands a year through the tax system, whilst simultaneously putting even more funding into the education of the wealthy at state schools.

I’m confused as to why you’re mentioning “charities”. What has that got to do with the VAT policy?

That’s a very right wing way of looking at education - a purely selfish, competitive, materialistic, individualistic perspective.

If that poster’s DD was your DD’s inspirational teacher in the state sector or a doctor who saved your DD’s life with prompt diagnosis could you perceive the benefits of education as a greater good?

It’s odd to see tax breaks on education, which of course applies to universities too, as penalising you personally.

Both will be rare oops sorry- uncommon!

Will be interested to see the result of applications
for EHCPs from those currently in private mainstream now deciding to apply for an EHCP in order to get their private fees funded.

Quite.

yes it’s a good thing. You want ‘International
competitiveness’? Then edu are ALL children to a high standard.
I could give a shiny shit how other countries do and don’t tax private education. There shouldn’t be private education ANYWHERE in the world. There are countries we’re children only get educated if their families can pay - that’s more concerning .

Based on my own experience. Come and see before you dismiss.

It isn’t as rare/uncommon as you are claiming. Not to mention you have changed your tune. When you posted them it wasn’t that it was rare/uncommon, it was that it didn’t happen - ‘will not get’. Then tried to claim you hadn’t said it when it is there in black and white.

Any rationale for this? The wealthy people get more of an advantage and it widens the divide between state and private - but that’s somehow a good thing?

Do you think then that adding VAT to university fees is going to make our university sector more competitive internationally?

Adding VAT to extracurricular clubs, dance and performing arts clubs, etc - will that make kids dance better, or give us more pop stars? (hint: tax goes to the government, not the teachers)

If we tax tennis lessons a bit more, do you think we’ll have more Wimbledon champions?

Because it’s another tax dodge to avoid paying taxes - business rates rather and getting tax relief in other areas. Charity status will be next to go. Long overdue.

Half of schools don’t have charitable status. Those that do have to meet criteria under the Charities Commission, as with any other charity. The fact that some people might not like this is irrelevant.

Sigh - this is not only totally untrue, but would be massively counterproductive. Please do some actual research and thinking before spouting off nonsense,

I think you are addressing the wrong person. I have been talking about my experiences of the private school I teach at, an academy I once taught at and my son's state comprehensive school which is also an academy.

"Everyone else I know, private or state, just accepts the change, or is in favour."
This.

Sigh. True. It’s absolutely LAUGHABLE that private schools are given charity status. They don’t fit the definition of charity by most people’s understanding.
Just another way to give advantages to the privileged

University places are not going to privately educated dc in such great numbers. Of course if dc don’t apply to Oxbridge they won’t get there. Oxbridge has many state educated grammar dc from London and the south. Not all state schools are equal and not all private schools convey much privilege! They are not all Eton!

I don’t really care where people were educated as long as they learn. Some parents don’t care much about education so not all schools are good. The private school teachers won’t go near these schools. The likelihood of any improvement in the worst schools is about zero.

It doesn't always give an advantage though, sometimes it just creates an almost level playing field.
My parents could just about afford to send my brother private on a subsidised place, through my mum working nights (at higher pay) then sleeping whilst we were at school, she got used to existing on about 5 hours sleep. My brother was refused any help or any diagnosis as a child, but absolutely could not cope in mainstream, he came home most days with cuts and bruises from being attacked in his main stream school. When he came home with a broken eye socket, my parents decided enough was enough and moved him to a small private where he could cope. He came out with C's and D's in his GCSE's, but most importantly he came out with his mental health just about intact, no longer suicidal.

I went to a 'sink school' for secondary, there was no teaching, just crowd control. I taught myself the curriculum from study guides and got through with no issues by giving the 'cool kids' the answers in lessons, the teachers were too busy breaking up fights to notice. I came out with all A's at gsce and a levels and an offer to study medicine at Cambridge.

Ultimately, for all this talk of equality, life is not and will never be equal. Some children are born with disabilities, some are not, some have supportive parents, some don't,some are brighter and more motivated.

If your children are limited, it is only by their abilities and attitudes and those of the people around them. I could have been all 'poor me, it's so unfair that my brother is getting a different education to me, if i cant have it then no one else should either'. Or I could make a choice to take control over my future myself, and I count myself much more fortunate than my privately educated brother.

I don't think anyone disagrees that high standards for all are what we want. But this policy won't achieve that, it's not a drop in the ocean of what is needed but will and already is demonstrably harming some children. So why do it?

They fit the legal definition so that's it really. Those that have it, don't make a profit and plough all their resources into bettering the education they provide. It has nothing to do with the VAT issue. They have had massive increases in running costs over the last few years and those that cater for overseas boarders were badly hit in covid too. I don't expect anyone to feel sympathy but all this carry on about how they are businesses is ludicrous. They have to balance their books and seem to raise revenue in many ways, but for those with charitable status there are no dividends, shareholders or owners gathering in personal profit.

@RhaenysRocks

"But this policy won't achieve that, it's not a drop in the ocean of what is needed"

So it'll cost privately educating parents loads but won't raise anything for state schools?

And it'll hugely disadvantage children who are currently highly advantaged, but at the same time will in no way contribute to a levelling out of the education playing field?

Like sort of Schrodinger's VAT?

Would you prefer to call them “nonprofits” instead? State schools are charities; universities are charities; further education colleges are charities; many private schools established in previous centuries were the original definition of charities. The Royal Ballet is a charity; the National Trust is a charity; football education foundations are charities. Please do go and look up the detailed and exhaustive definition of charity on the charity commission website. Should every charity you don’t personally approve the purpose of be stripped of charitable status?