Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to reconsider a long friendship over support for education tax?

1000 replies

CoconutRumcake · 03/10/2026 10:46

A close friend of over 15 years last night unashamedly said she supported the children’s education tax. To put this in context, she is godmother to my ds and has seen first hand what damage this has done to children and families as well as her own sister losing her job when the school closed. She had maybe drank too much and has apologised over text this morning, but I really can’t shake the feeling that I don’t want to be around her.
AIBU -try and move past it
YANBU -it’s run it’s time

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
Tortephant · 03/10/2026 14:56

CoconutRumcake · 03/10/2026 14:54

I didn’t expect people to agree with her point of view, I’d assumed (wrongly) that most people would regard taxing children’s education as rather ridiculous and harmful.

No OP, because unlike you most people understand what they are talking about.

AnswerIsNo · 03/10/2026 14:57

SweetnsourNZ · 03/10/2026 14:49

Agree. The debate should really be about having a friend with a different view on a political issue, not actually discussing the issue.

well the whole point about introducing the "friend scenario" is that it's designed to bypass the critical part of your mind that would normally flag up, "hang-on, this is a political debate, do I want to get into this right now?"

the friend was a red-herring to distract part of your mind away from what their agenda actually is... subliminally sneaky, or so they think

but needs to get out of bed very early to catch me out

Merrymakersq · 03/10/2026 14:57

CoconutRumcake · 03/10/2026 12:19

It’s akin to advocating for the removal of education options for children.
She didn’t say they shouldn’t have charity status, she says she agreed with the education tax. There is no link between charity status and the education tax paid by the children at all.

The bouquet residence! Lady of the house speaking! … I agree with you OP - get rid of this yob friend.

CoconutRumcake · 03/10/2026 14:58

Tortephant · 03/10/2026 14:56

No OP, because unlike you most people understand what they are talking about.

Well it’s not a particularly complex issue, tax children’s education vs don’t tax it.

OP posts:
prinkleman · 03/10/2026 15:00

CoconutRumcake · 03/10/2026 14:38

Okay, this really is interesting example of dunnenger-Kruger effect.

I’m going to ignore the insults and just answer your points with facts, backed up with a link to HMRC and the Government policy. I hope you will spend 2 minutes giving them a quick read.

Independant schools lost their VAT exempt status under the current government. They previously had this under the rather spurious pretence that they were charities.

No this is completely incorrect, I’m surprised your friends at independent schools think that. It had nothing to do with charitable status. Their fees didn’t go up by 20%, in a lot of cases fees actually went down to try and help the children but it’s just that they now pay 20% on their children’s education services.
Private schools always paid VAT.Charitable status offers gift aid and a reduction in business rates (the government also removed charitable business rate relief ) for non profit schools. What has changed now is that education and vocational services provided to people aged 5-18, otherwise known as children, are now taxable. This is nothing to do with charitable status, I repeat nothing to do with charitable status. Children’s education was tax free , now it’s not….I don’t think I can be clearer really. Here is the link to the policy https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-on-education-and-vocational-training-notice-70130

And there is no such thing as "net" tax or a "net" tax payer. What are you actually on about? A person's salary is described as gross before deductions such as tax and NI are made and what is left is the net amount. Hope this helps.

A net tax payer is someone who pays more into the system than takes out. Obviously this varies from person to person but it is generally agreed to be around £45k. Currently only 47% of people are net contributors with the top 10% paying 60% of income taxes. It costs tax payers £8k a year to care a child.

What are you not getting?? Did you have private education? Because if you did it wasn’t worth it.

AIBU to reconsider a long friendship over support for education tax?
Pushmepullu · 03/10/2026 15:00

TBH if I were her I would drop you as a friend. Your argument is pretty incoherent. Have you been drinking?

Scottishskifun · 03/10/2026 15:01

CoconutRumcake · 03/10/2026 13:42

The thread is really about if I should remain in contact with someone who thinks a children’s education tax is a good thing. I think says a lot about someone’s character whether they want to tax children’s education or even their intelligence.

Going independent is no longer a viable option for us now the school as closed and to be honest the tax seems to have changed the schools from what I’m hearing plus really I don’t think it’s worth the cost now. I still do t want to take the option away from other parents though, just because it’s not for us . Being the only developed to nation to tax children’s education really says quite a lot about us.

Honestly by the majority of your posts and ostrich responses with absolute refusal (despite many posters pointing out where your view is completely flawed) I think your friend would be a lot happier without you in their life so go for it cut them off as they will probably breathe a sigh of relief!

Interestingnamesuggestion · 03/10/2026 15:01

Tortephant · 03/10/2026 14:56

No OP, because unlike you most people understand what they are talking about.

OP hasn't presented her views in a helpful or even polite way at all, but to suggest that the only possible conclusion to arrive at by a person who "understands what they are talking about" is the same as your own opinion is also fairly unhelpful and impolite.

I'd say that a majority of posters on this thread don't fully understand what they are talking about when they continue to characterise all private schools as insanely expensive and all parents who use them as rich and posh.

But I wouldn't go as far as to say that anyone who disagrees with me doesn't understand what they are talking about.

Worrall20 · 03/10/2026 15:02

Heronwatcher · 03/10/2026 14:25

SEN kids that have ECHPs were exempt from the VAT changes. I genuinely sympathise with the “borderline SEN” cases but how else would the system have worked? If you want to charge VAT on school fees (and Labour were elected with this in their manifesto) how else could they have done it?

And what about the borderline SEN cases who simply would never have the money to go private? The idea behind doing this is to help schools where all children can go so, at least in theory, SEN children in the state sector will have a better time.

Yes SEN with an EHCP and when the local LA fully funds the placement are exempt from VAT.

All that the peevish policy has achieved is more SEN pupils having to go back to state. State schools are already underfunded therefore this is having a negative on all SEN pupils. So the ‘theory’ all SEN children in the state sector will benefit is not viable argument.

hedgeknight · 03/10/2026 15:02

CoconutRumcake · 03/10/2026 14:58

Well it’s not a particularly complex issue, tax children’s education vs don’t tax it.

It is very simple indeed

Choose fee paying private education v don't choose it.

CoconutRumcake · 03/10/2026 15:04

Winter42 · 03/10/2026 14:39

The fact that you are referring to anyone who questions your (incorrect) arguments as thick and spiteful suggest that your friend has had a lucky escape.

Your disdain for anyone who doesn't think relatively wealthy families should have extra support in buying more privilege for their children is a good argument for abolishing private education entirely. The other one would be how much better state education tends to be in countries who have done this.

Education is, as you agree vitally important and thr bedrock of a civilisation. Therefore it should not operate a two tier system.

Yes, let’s have a look at the education in countries who abolished independent schools. Here’s the list:
Cuba
North Korea
Ethiopia

OP posts:
HopHopAndHopAgain · 03/10/2026 15:04

Two of my best friends voted for Brexit. I am a staunch remainer. I still love my friends.

Soupdragon41 · 03/10/2026 15:05

CoconutRumcake · 03/10/2026 14:38

Okay, this really is interesting example of dunnenger-Kruger effect.

I’m going to ignore the insults and just answer your points with facts, backed up with a link to HMRC and the Government policy. I hope you will spend 2 minutes giving them a quick read.

Independant schools lost their VAT exempt status under the current government. They previously had this under the rather spurious pretence that they were charities.

No this is completely incorrect, I’m surprised your friends at independent schools think that. It had nothing to do with charitable status. Their fees didn’t go up by 20%, in a lot of cases fees actually went down to try and help the children but it’s just that they now pay 20% on their children’s education services.
Private schools always paid VAT.Charitable status offers gift aid and a reduction in business rates (the government also removed charitable business rate relief ) for non profit schools. What has changed now is that education and vocational services provided to people aged 5-18, otherwise known as children, are now taxable. This is nothing to do with charitable status, I repeat nothing to do with charitable status. Children’s education was tax free , now it’s not….I don’t think I can be clearer really. Here is the link to the policy https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-on-education-and-vocational-training-notice-70130

And there is no such thing as "net" tax or a "net" tax payer. What are you actually on about? A person's salary is described as gross before deductions such as tax and NI are made and what is left is the net amount. Hope this helps.

A net tax payer is someone who pays more into the system than takes out. Obviously this varies from person to person but it is generally agreed to be around £45k. Currently only 47% of people are net contributors with the top 10% paying 60% of income taxes. It costs tax payers £8k a year to care a child.

You’re going to ignore the insults? From what I’ve read it’s you hurling about words like ignorant and thick! The art of debate is obviously lost on you as you are unable to discuss this calmly or even take anyone else’s points on board.

I'm sure you have posted about so called education tax before, with similar venom coming from you

CoconutRumcake · 03/10/2026 15:08

Interestingnamesuggestion · 03/10/2026 15:01

OP hasn't presented her views in a helpful or even polite way at all, but to suggest that the only possible conclusion to arrive at by a person who "understands what they are talking about" is the same as your own opinion is also fairly unhelpful and impolite.

I'd say that a majority of posters on this thread don't fully understand what they are talking about when they continue to characterise all private schools as insanely expensive and all parents who use them as rich and posh.

But I wouldn't go as far as to say that anyone who disagrees with me doesn't understand what they are talking about.

But there does seem to be a lot of misunderstanding about this policy. The amount of comments about charity status and taxing business profits is ridiculous, I genuinely don’t think people realised that it’s a tax on children’s education paid by the child (fee payer) not schools.

OP posts:
Tortephant · 03/10/2026 15:09

Interestingnamesuggestion · 03/10/2026 15:01

OP hasn't presented her views in a helpful or even polite way at all, but to suggest that the only possible conclusion to arrive at by a person who "understands what they are talking about" is the same as your own opinion is also fairly unhelpful and impolite.

I'd say that a majority of posters on this thread don't fully understand what they are talking about when they continue to characterise all private schools as insanely expensive and all parents who use them as rich and posh.

But I wouldn't go as far as to say that anyone who disagrees with me doesn't understand what they are talking about.

I haven’t said that at all. I have posted throughout this thread. I have a thorough knowledge of the private school landscape and how of different financial models in different private schools.
I’m saying in this post that OP is blatantly ignoring what she is being told and refusing to hear it or debate it.

Worrall20 · 03/10/2026 15:09

Slightyamusedandsilly · 03/10/2026 14:28

There is very very little good private SEND. Not sure why, it's a logical area for profit (hint, VAT is paid by businesses). There is a definitely a gap in the market there.

Think that is a general consensus by yourself. The private schools in my area are outstanding on SEND. Yes VAT is paid by business, yet in Europe no VAT is payable on any, State or Private, education. Yet here we have a PM who thinks it would be a good idea to rejoin European? Oh and my children went to state school.

Winter42 · 03/10/2026 15:10

CoconutRumcake · 03/10/2026 15:04

Yes, let’s have a look at the education in countries who abolished independent schools. Here’s the list:
Cuba
North Korea
Ethiopia

I think those countries probably have other issues affecting their outcomes.

Finland, on the other hand has one of the best education systems in the world. Whilst a small number of private schools technically exist there they are non fee paying.

Tortephant · 03/10/2026 15:13

CoconutRumcake · 03/10/2026 15:08

But there does seem to be a lot of misunderstanding about this policy. The amount of comments about charity status and taxing business profits is ridiculous, I genuinely don’t think people realised that it’s a tax on children’s education paid by the child (fee payer) not schools.

OP, it is not a tax on children’s education.

if your invoice has gone up as VAT is now charged on the fees then bursaries and scholarships are available, funded from the charitable arm of the school, to offset this is you aren’t able to afford the increase.

it is not a tax on education. It is VAT on an invoice. When you take your Range Rover to be serviced you pay it. When you by a bottle of wine you pay it. When you renovate your bathroom you pay it.

OneNewLeader · 03/10/2026 15:15

For years women have had to pay tax on products that were a necessity. I opted to buy my kids an education, I never understood why it was exempted from tax. Only my kids benefitted from it. I’d probably have been on your friend’s side, but kept my own counsel.

CoconutRumcake · 03/10/2026 15:17

Winter42 · 03/10/2026 15:10

I think those countries probably have other issues affecting their outcomes.

Finland, on the other hand has one of the best education systems in the world. Whilst a small number of private schools technically exist there they are non fee paying.

Ha ha, yes I’m sure they do or perhaps it’s a symptom of the ideology that drives such a policy. It’s interesting that you dismiss countries that have actually banned private schools as irrelevant to the argument, but use a country that hasn’t actually banned them as relevant.

I’m not sure you’re looking at this objectively

OP posts:
CoconutRumcake · 03/10/2026 15:20

Whether you agree with it or not or would like it to have a different name, it is a tax on children’s education. The reason you don’t like to think of it as taxing children’s education is because it’s quite clearly a ridiculous thing for a country to do, yet it has happened.

www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-on-education-and-vocational-training-notice-70130

OP posts:
whatwouldlilacerullodo · 03/10/2026 15:21

It's obvious that adding 20% to school fees will harm those who are just managing to pay for education. It doesn't make a difference for people who are properly rich. But it makes it impossible for middle class children to access the best education.
As always, the middle class is fucked and social mobility gets harder.

Winter42 · 03/10/2026 15:22

CoconutRumcake · 03/10/2026 15:08

But there does seem to be a lot of misunderstanding about this policy. The amount of comments about charity status and taxing business profits is ridiculous, I genuinely don’t think people realised that it’s a tax on children’s education paid by the child (fee payer) not schools.

We understand.

It is VAT which is paid on goods and services. Private schools offer a service which you can choose to purchase and so you pay VAT like on any other service.

I am also pretty sure in most cases the children themselves are not paying the fees.

Shatenoeuf · 03/10/2026 15:22

People do understand what it is, op. And they are ok with it. You may not like that but people do not have to share your view.

It isnt all politics of envy. I can comfortably afford private school. I choose not to because I do not believe in segregating children in education based on their parents ability to pay.

hedgeknight · 03/10/2026 15:22

Worrall20 · 03/10/2026 15:09

Think that is a general consensus by yourself. The private schools in my area are outstanding on SEND. Yes VAT is paid by business, yet in Europe no VAT is payable on any, State or Private, education. Yet here we have a PM who thinks it would be a good idea to rejoin European? Oh and my children went to state school.

I think most people can see that the benefits of rejoining the EU would outweigh this particular Brexit benefit.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread