VAT on private school fees

[user1486984759]

So I’m going to get crucified for this, BUT, let me get this straight:

• We pay 45% tax, thereby funding state schools
• We do not get any benefits, and those that do get priority when it comes to state school admissions
• We scrimp and save from what’s left after paying 45% tax to pay for our kids’ education
• And now the state is going to add 20% to our school fees to fund state schools
• So we pay the most to fund state schools, but when it comes to state school admissions, we are last in line

How is this fair?

It seems that in this country, the best places to be are (1) a non-dom billionaire, or (2) someone who doesn’t pay taxes, gets all the benefits, and gets priority in state school admissions. The hard working PAYE earners are screwed by parties from left, right and center.

I live, by chance, in the catchment for a massively sought-after comp. (My kids have all gone state out of catchment.)

Whoo-hoo! An extra 25k on the house.

Well done Labour! Transfer the money to those who don’t need it. Good work.

The word crushed for a start. I can't speak to your intent but I read a certain glee that state school children were going to be disadvantaged.

Most parents at the smaller private schools are scrimping and saving. Especially if you have more than one kid.
Mine went to three different schools with two of those schools taking approx 80% working parents. Doctors, lawyers, brokers etc. All forgoing holidays, treats etc to pay for their kids to attend the schools of their choice. All scrambling for scholarships when they came up.
People may earn a lot to pay the top rate tax but gross earnings decline hugely through tax and NI payments.

Once school fees are deducted….there’s not much left.
So a few! Will not be leaving. A lot will!

Taking away choice is a disgrace.

Speaking of glee the amount of posts imagining private school dc will be taken out is really something

Not aimed at you, but mn is full of it today

Forgoing holidays isn’t scrimping and saving when you mean only going abroad once and missing out on a ski trip at half term.

I’m in the same position as you.
Our house is up for sale next to two grammar schools and people are falling over themselves to offer over £1mill to buy it to get their kids into grammar.
All paying for private at home tuition since the kids were 4.
That’s private one to one education

I despise selection by test. It’s an awful system putting down kids who don’t pass.
For me at the moment, however, it’s a win win.
We ve even been given a champagne hamper with one offer🤣🤣🤣

Forgoing generally means not going
Not having
Nothing
Most parents who use private schools really aren’t skiing at half term.
We ve been in the system for 30years, the reality is not like the headlines.

For many it means no holidays whilst the child/ren are at school (so for 10-20 years), trying to keep an old car running, and living in a very modest house. As opposed to other parents spending an additional £200k on a house in a prime state school catchment, going on several holidays a year and getting tutors for their children. But those attending the private school are obviously more privileged than the later group 🙄

I understand what forgoing means. For example, parents often have to forgo meals to ensure their children eat. This means they do without some of the meals they would like to have. It doesn’t mean they no longer have any meals at all.

Please try to be less patronising, particularly when you are wrong.

Plus of course.
Private kids moving to the state sector will get lots of private tuition pushing everyone else down the ladder in school.
Thats quite demoralising for a clever kid.
Not to mention all those private tennis, cricket and rugby lessons that push them out of the first teams.
I can see a lot of disgruntled parents, and not just the private sch parents.

I can also see private parents offering masses of money to homeowners near the best schools. They’ll have plenty of cash now they’re not paying fees.

I saw Labour were suggesting that private schools don’t need to pass on the additional 15% or so costs of VAT to parents. I am amazed they could be so ignorant - the vast majority of private schools sit on a knife-edge financially. There is no way they could absorb the cost of new textbooks let alone VAT. Costs have to be passed on in fees (or issuing a book list for parents to buy).

Very rude.
You didn’t seem to understand the word fully so I explained.
You are also incorrect as I am clearly not wrong about anything I have said.
I said forgoing holidays and treats…..I did not include food in that…you did!

Please do not criticise me ( or call me names )on words I have not used or intimated.

I was merely clarifying the point I was making, should you have misunderstood.

And the winner for most tone deaf post of 2023 goes to OP. Cry me a river.

state schools (that are literally crumbling due to RAAC)

It is not just state schools that are ‘literally crumbling’ due to RAAC, private schools have buildings with RAAC too. (Though the issue with RAAC is, unlike other concrete, it doesn’t crumble as the reinforcing rods rust; it fails without warning.)

Labour members were making a patronising comment.
It’s obvious they don’t have to pass on the cost.
If they loose the tax break though I feel sorry for all the state schools that will loose out on use of all the facilities and free tuition, including music, sport, swimming, theatre, languages etc.
Our school have already said they will not be raising fees as they’ll loose / drop the charitable status and so won’t be offering facilities and teachers to the state anymore. Or places for non paying students.

That’s a shame as my kids used to do voluntary work on a Wednesday afternoon at a local primary organised by their school.

I can explain “for example” for you if you would like.

I don’t believe anyone scrimping to send their kids to private school knows what scrimping means. Buying a £500,000 house instead of £700,000 house is not scrimping. Having a five year old Range Rover is not scrimping. No one is earning 55,000 and scrimping to pay 25,000 at private school. Lawyers and brokers with children at private school are not poor because of it and It’s offensive to suggest that they are.

Thankyou @SaffronSpice for the support,
Clearly you have relevant experience too!

It’s obvious they don’t have to pass on the cost.

Your school may be in the fortunate position of being able to cut costs but many many are not, especially smaller schools.

THIS

Well someone lives in a privileged world if they cannot understand keeping a 20 year old focus running, living in a £200k three bed terrace and both parents working. Or that private school fees for small provincial schools are often nearer £15k

@SaffronSpice that's a very valid point, there is more than one way to skin a cat. People also prioritise their spending according to what they personally value, and education is the one thing that can never be taken from you. But I don't know if it's an argument for private education per se.

I don't like the generalisations that are happening within the post that people 'lack ambition' in the UK, or that ambition is resented? Boasting, yes. Failing to recognise advantages that aren't borne to people of equal ability that work just as hard? Yes, these things draw scorn. Ambition, no.

I do however think it's important that children from poorer backgrounds get to see and understand possibilities outside of their lived experience. Some children do live very limited lives, because it's expensive to travel, to take part in certain sports, to do all manner of things - programmes by Universities that engage with local schools can be amazing for this. Even a singular event can be life changing. I wish there were more of them, both from higher education and from the schools lucky enough to have the facilities that most state schools lack.

Also the '45% tax band', which only kicks in on earnings of over 125k, the way it's referenced repeatedly in this thread you'd think it was on the entirety of earnings. Do I think this is necessarily a fair positioning of the band? Not really, given how much it costs to live now 125k isn't huge wealth, but then it's all part of the same problem for everyone on a salary - it's not just the higher earners that feel they're getting shafted and notice their standard of living diminishing. Please understand how bemoaning the fact of paying tax toward a school place you 'aren't taking up' can be galling, and isn't really an accurate representation of how things work.

As someone has already pointed out, we're squabbling amongst ourselves over a policy that likely won't happen, whose interest is that in?

I was pointing out Labour we’re making an obvious dig at private schools. ie making a dig at potential profit margins.
Most of which don’t have any,

Is that your background? Or is that a fictional parent? Exactly how many private school parents live in £200,000 houses and drive Ford focuses, excluding those with special needs children? If that’s you, then you’ll be well aware of what a minority you are. If it’s not you, then you’re basically making up a sob story.

Is it easy to just drop charitable status though.

I worked for an organisation that decided to stop being a charity. It had to get privy council approval.It was pretty complicated.

Goodness me@Nellodee you really don’t know what sort of parents send their kids to private school.
They are everywhere
Running your local shop, down that terraced street, they are not all Range Rover, Barbour types
Its not all Elton and an Harrow you know
Those schools are mainly full of Russian Oligarchs and the like who go by private helicopter to the cricket match.…..Thats not normal private school.