Keir Starmer went to private school

[Asking4afrend]

AIBU to be shocked that Keir Starmer went to private school? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. So he enjoyed an excellent education which increased his social mobility and then wants to bring down the system that helped him, even when they gave him a 100% bursary so that his parents didn’t have to pay the fees?

This is from wiki:

Starmer passed the 11-plus examination and gained entry to Reigate Grammar School, which at the time was a voluntary-aidedselective grammar school.[1][12] The school converted into an independent fee-paying school in 1976, while he was a student. The terms of the conversion were such that his parents were not required to pay for his schooling until he turned 16, and when he reached that point, the school, by now a charity, awarded him a bursary that allowed him to complete his education there without any parental contribution.

I only found out about this today when I was googling the school for another reason and looked up the alumni. What a hypocrite. You didn’t hear about this in the election during all his “my father was a toolmaker” speeches.

I'm sure you're right about the polling results, but every thread I've ever seen here on this subject has had posts that reveal very poor understanding of how state schools and private schools are funded, charitable status and how VAT works. This VAT change has nothing to do with charitable status but people still mention it. Nobody draws attention to the fact that big private schools can now claim back VAT on their huge building projects, and that will mean many will get a refund rather than hand over tax to HMRC.

And ?…… who cares where he went to school ?

@Asking4afrend
So what? At 11 he probably didn’t get a choice. Parents decide on schools and children sometimes get a choice.
Beside it wasn’t a private school when he started and why should he have to change schools for 6th form?

Only around half of private schools are charities. And I suspect a good proportion of those are set up to ensure there is a healthy income for the school before any true charitable status concerns.

The advancement of education is defined as a charitable benefit. So surely a school can say well our fees are 25 k a year, but we will say we're a charity and charge 24k a year? Doesn't seem like a true charity to me? More of a loophole. Eton is a charity for example - yeah right!!!! I'm sure they allow just enough pupils in for free to get charitable status but overall they are creaming off a massive profit.

Good article here about how people need to stop pretending private schools are charities.

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/private-schools-tax-breaks-charities-b1093865.html

Oh and it also looks like if a pupil is attending private school as the state system can't meet their needs then they don't have to pay VAT

https://www.hazlewoods.co.uk/insights/healthcare/vat-treatment-of-private-school-fees-for-special-educational-needs-and-disabilities-send-schools/#:~:text=The%20government%20has%20confirmed%20that%20where%20pupils%20are,the%20VAT%20they%20incur%20on%20these%20pupils%E2%80%99%20fees.

Are you saying Eton doesn't make a profit.?? It's got reserves of £552million. It's a shit charity if it really is one.

And ultimately if a private school is a charity then I'm sure they won't mind some of their fees being funnelled by the way of VAT into the state system to help truly impoverished kids.

Those forecast figures are based on what is now known to be a significant underestimation of the numbers who will leave or not start PS over time.

They also don’t take into account parental behaviour when they no longer use PS.

Most who leave or don’t start will be the ones who were marginal in terms of affordability. They were stretched to a point where it because unsustainable. It is unrealistic to assume those people will continue to pay the same amount of income tax as a result of increased pension contributions and/or working less.

If you were paying 20k fees each year that would account for a similar amount of income tax paid to generate the fee money. Once there are no fees to pay it makes sense to put 40k into a pre soon thereby avoiding c20k income tax each year without being a penny worse off with regards to take home pay.

The end result is that even if a parent works the same as before they will receive taxpayer funding of over 25k every year when pension + state school place costs are added together.

The total sum soon dwarfs the VAT paid but Labour of course never like to mention it as it would expose the motivation for their policy.

A new finding from the Institute for Fiscal Studies all the more interesting. It has claimed that removing the tax breaks on private schools would only push three to seven per cent into the state system. Which, even taking into account the money this would cost — some £100m to £300m — would save the taxpayer £1.3bn to £1.5bn overall.

IFS are pretty independent and I would say know what they're talking about.

The school can make an operating profit. However, that profit belongs to the school rather than being paid out to any shareholders. It can either be reinvested in the school or held in reserves.

The justification is that private schools provide a non-essential service and so should be subject to the same tax rules as other non-essential services.

Education is compulsory 4-18 in this country. So it is an essential service, it is mandatory to educate your kids, whether in a state school, at home or in a private school. So that is just a wrong analysis.

Also I just looked at Eaton’s account. They spend MORE than they take in fee income from the parents.
The endowment fund they have had and grown into 500 million plus is separate to fee income received from parents. It has been managed and grown over many years. They also get tons of donations. A lot is then spent on bursaries and outreach, presumably from the endowment primarily.

I took my 11+ in the 60s. My junior school was streamed by ability, and only children in the top stream took it.

Back in the 1970s each LEA decided its policy separately. The Department of Education didn't dictate whether they had to have comprehensives or make all children sit the 11+. In London the 11+ ended in the mid 1970s. In Leeds the last sitting was 1971, because I missed it by one year, and they reorganised all schools into first, middle and upper schools, all of them taking all abilities, at the same time (since changed back to primary and secondary).

The Direct Grant scheme was a central government initiative and it ended in 1976, but any pupils already attending direct grant schools which became independent schools were paid for until they completed sixth form to avoid disruption to their education. It had provided 100% scholarships to some children moving from state primary schools to academically selective fee-paying schools. For children who didn't do well enough to get a scholarship but did pass the entrance exam or get a high score in the 11+, the fees were means tested, with discounts if you had more than one child in a direct grant school at a time. At my school most of us were therefore either on free places or very low fees. It was much more generous than the Assisted Places scheme which came in later.

You mean the very same IFS that Luke Sibieta worked for? The supposedly independent person who wrote the report who it later transpired had lived with a Labour Minister and was best man at his wedding?

That aside, the numbers you quote do not take into consideration the behavioural changes I outlined. They even have a caveat that they are based on people earning and paying the same tax, making no increased pension contributions and spending what was the fee money on other VATable goods and services. That is one unrealistic set of assumptions.

Also worth noting that over 3% have already left PS and the impact has barely even started. Have a look at September admissions and you will see just how much the taxpayer bill is growing.

It’s no confidence that Labour said they were going to stop assessing the impact after 6 months because they know the bulk of it will take place from Sept onwards.

It is now simply a case of how much it will cost the taxpayer and how much it will damage state schools.

Being at school untill 18 isn't mandatory though.

Good article here about how people need to stop pretending private schools are charities.

You may not like the fact that they are charities but they are. So is the Royal Opera House.

Neither is going to university. Should university fees incur VAT too?

Even Luke S had to stuff a huge amount of caveats into his heavily labour leaning report. All based on old behavioural data.

Its not new and its not neutral.

That's because state schools don't have a taxable income.

Tax breaks - i.e. not charging tax to those who would otherwise be within the ambit of a tax - is actually considered a subsidy (for example, for the purposes of state aid rules).

And state schools provide that essential service. So private schools aren’t essential, if they were then all children would need to go to a private school.

Seeing as most university students never pay their debt back (or historically haven’t) and the govt effectively lend the money that would be a bit daft.

theres also a massive argument that having a population with a high percentage who have received a degree level education benefits society as a whole. No such argument for private school over state school.

Assuming this was directed at my post, yes, education is an essential service. Private education is not an essential service.

I disagree. They are doing Maths and English and Science GCSEs at private school as well. What do you think they are doing there? Riding ponies all day?

So given they are getting an education, this policy is the most absurd thing since Brexit. But you carry on with your heads in cloud cuckoo land.
At some point, there will be a U-turn. Question is when.
No other country pulls this shit to this level.