Wow, perhaps we are really are lacking in political education in this country if people think Keir Starmer's policies are in any way socialist, or if socialism has anything to do with aspiration or consumer choices. Yikes. I wish some of them were. I would love cooperatively owned public transport that actually worked like in Germany, would love a health service from which the profit motive was removed at every stage, love it. And I'd still go to Waitrose, after getting off my cheap, fairly price, punctual train. Anyway, I digress.
OP, you're obviously upset at the prospect of this change that may or may not happen - sounds far more likely not. I get that, it would have personal ramifications for you and perhaps a wider section of society than people imagine. Got it.
If you can't see why your post has gotten people's backs up though, it's the wording. Lots of it. The implications of what you're saying (whether or not it's what you intend) are patronising and inaccurate.
- "We pay 45% tax, thereby funding state schools" - you pay 45% tax on earnings over 125k, per person in your household. I have said elsewhere that it's legitimate to take issue with the level at which this is set, it's not legitimate to state it here as the implication, whether you mean it or not, is that other people don't work, pay tax, may have paid higher rates of tax than you in the past and contribute in an equally meaningful and monetary way. You have the good fortune to have a well paid role, it may be a challenging role for which you studied a long time. There are plenty of similar positions which require incredibly hard work and knowledge, which aren't remunerated at anything like that level - including the doctors you reference elsewhere. That isn't your fault but it perhaps isn't the point to lead with. You aren't paying for someone else's child's state education, for which they should be grateful to you, you even state your frustration elsewhere that you doubt this extra money will go where you'd hope it would.
- "We do not get any benefits, and those that do get priority when it comes to state school admissions"...pardon? no. You seem to have a distorted idea of who out there receives benefits, again, not your fault, our media would often have you believe that there are unworthy scroungers on every corner (it's not true.) What is true is that there are people out there working full time hours, sometimes in professional careers, who can't pay their rent, have no hope of ever owning a home and can't feed their children. That's not their fault either, that's the fault of wage stagnation, greed and corruption.
- "We scrimp and save from what’s left after paying 45% tax to pay for our kids’ education" - good, you prioritise education, it's an admirable value. Perhaps take another look at your local state school provision, you might be more impressed than you think. I've tried to make the point elsewhere but there is massive variability not only in the state sector but also private, and things change within the period of a few short years.
- "And now the state is going to add 20% to our school fees to fund state schools"....sigh
- "So we pay the most to fund state schools, but when it comes to state school admissions, we are last in line", who is this 'we'? you are inadvertently setting up an 'us' and 'them'. The state school cohort is enormous, most parents pay taxes. Some pay taxes at the level of what you likely pay, and some even more.
To also say that state school candidates will be 'crushed' by students who would otherwise be going to private school in grammar school entrance exams also implies (again, whether you mean to or not) that you think that private school destined children are in some way naturally more able than other children, where they likely are of comparable mixed ability. I responded elsewhere to your later point that 'but they will have more tuition' pointing out that plenty of state educated people have extra tuition, are sometimes themselves the children of teachers and come from a far wider section of society, on a numbers game alone there will be more academically gifted children within the much larger group than the smaller. Nobody is going to be crushed. Can you see why the implication of your statement would have made people roll their eyes?
Points that if led with might have engendered a better discussion....
'This proposal to charge VAT on private schools is so poorly thought out. It's going to push a lot of people out of private schooling who have turned to it for a multitude of reasons, and who work in professions that are well paid but we aren't the super wealthy people imagine.
It's also going to have implications to other parts of society, Universities, private tuition, anything where education is the supply.
I personally feel penalised by this for wanting to make what I think is the best choice for my child. It will mean we have to seriously reconsider private education and I am not confident we can find the same standard of education outside of the private sector.'
It's not so inflammatory, boring even, probably wouldn't have gotten many responses but it might have been a better conversation? You might have received assurances on your alternatives, empathy, recognition of the fact it seems a poor and headline grabbing suggestion in the first place.