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.

Brampton Manor also has Year 7 entry, many Sixth Forms in London schools are now selective and it is self perpetuating. The better the results, the higher the applications from high achievers, the better the results.

Many academies now have back door selection criteria like music or language aptitude etc. It is nothing new.

Successful schools want engaged, hardworking bright students and supportive parents. They need not be “rich” to be any of that. Private schools probably want the same but they have to take those who can also pay (largely, with the exception of some limited bursaries).

Average household income is around £32k.

Average private day fees £15k

You have to be earning way above the average to afford one, never mind multiple kids in private school.

Charity and tax breaks are not for the wealthy.

Apologies, I know that data like this isn't very exciting.

Some of the pupils at Brampton go to my DS’ super selective grammar for 11-16. They travel a long way out of London for that too. Most of those kids come from Labour areas where the grammars were closed down years ago…but the parents still want the grammar school education for their kids so they have to travel for it. Selective sixth forms can still be created now (because all sixth forms are selective). It makes me wonder what would happen if GCSEs were ended. Would we lose these highly selective sixth form colleges at the same time?

How terrible that able students, many from poorer families who value academic success, should be taught together. Almost sinister, I say.

Do you think the abler students should be dispersed among other students for the others’ good? If so where did that obligation come from? What certainty can we possibly have that stronger students will propel others upwards academically? And what of the abler students and their families? Why should they not have a surer expectation of commitment to work and exam success among peers?

I realise this is a selective v comp issue and not about VAT. But it does infuriate me when people object to selection for the sake of it.

“In the financial year ending (FYE) 2022, median household income in the UK before taxes and benefits was £35,000, increasing to £38,100 after taxes and benefits. The richest fifth had a mean household income before taxes and benefits of £117,500, over 14 times larger than the poorest fifth (£8,200). After cash benefits and direct taxes, this reduced to £83,700 for the richest fifth, 6.3 times larger than the poorest fifth (£13,200). After all taxes and benefits, this ratio reduced to 3.8 times larger, with average final incomes of £83,900 and £22,300 for richest and poorest people, respectively.” ONS

(Remember this is household income so does not take into account the size of the household other than benefits)

@SaffronSpice

An income of £38k still does not enable £30k on school frees.

Private school tax breaks are benefits/welfare for the rich.

You will get crucified for this but I for one totally agree with you

The hard working PAYE earners are screwed by parties from left, right and center.

The majority of PAYE earners, whether hard working or not, cannot afford private education. We are also a 45% tax household, we don't live in a huge house but have a mortgage, no extravagent holidays yet private education (min of £2k/month for senior school) is beyond our means. You are paying for an advantage - own it.

I do agree with that, in general. But the issue is really whether tax advantages for private schools is right as a policy or not. VAT doesn’t discriminate between the very rich, quite rich or not rich. Relief is related to the product or service purchased, and the social value of the activity of the supplier.

I still have had no answer - not from you, I mean, but from others generally - about why dog rescues should continue to enjoy greater tax perks than the education of children.

@WhileMyDishwasherGentlyWeeps

You cannot compare dog rescues to private schools.

A better analogy would be a charity or state run childrens home. No tax paid there either.

Why can’t I compare those? The whole, all-embracing point of charities is social benefit. It’s the same justification for any and all charities.

I might agree with you if Labour said it would massively tighten charity status all round, strip animal charities of their status, along with some of the more doubtful, small ‘p’ political charities. But as things would stand, you’d be more highly valued socially, through the tax system, importing stray dogs from Bucharest than educating children at your private school.

Charities (by law) have to benefit the public. They don't need to benefit every single member of the public, e.g. a cancer charity benefits patients with cancer. The problem with allowing private schools to be charities is that they benefit a minority of the population that is already privileged in comparison to the majority.

DD's comprehensive has a sixth form - but only enough places for 1/4 of the year group.

To apply you currently need a minimum of 6 GCSES at grades 9-7 and the oversubscription criteria have a ranking system on highest score from top 5 subjects.

It's in an area with a lot of selective independent schools - I can see a situation where there will be very few places available for any outside the very highest scoring children currently at the school from Y7-11.

Sinister don’t be so hyperbolic.

I just don’t believe that kids that have achieved outstanding GCSE results at their existing schools should get creamed off to make one super selective that knows how to game the system look outstanding.

There’s no reason to believe that those kids wouldn’t get excellent A level results at their existing schools’ sixth forms and be an asset to them.

What would be good is for all state schools to be able to provide comprehensive university application support - interview practice, LNAT, BMAT, UKCAT, STEP, MAT how to access bursaries etc.

Yes. So why does private education rank lower than dog care in the social benefit stakes? Why should the tax take - which is put into a pot by the treasury - recognise relief for dog charities but not schools, whoever the paying parents are?

We could release far more money to government by ending advantages for animal charities. And that’s without factoring in private schools’ bursaries. This proposal looks very much more like social spite than anything else.

Private medicine, in general, is VAT free. Do you want to change that too?

In that case, I presume you are against universities widening access criteria targeting lower performing schools as There’s no reason to believe that those kids wouldn’t get excellent A level results at their existing schools’ sixth forms?

Sinister don’t be so hyperbolic.

It was sarcasm.

So why is selection wrong in principle?

“An asset to them [existing schools]” in what way? That the existing schools would look better if they retained these cleverer, more motivate students, even at the cost of these students’ results? There is every reason to believe that these students would do worse in less academically inclined schools.

The ‘oh, clever kids do well anywhere’ mantra is crap. That’s why parents fight tooth and nail for entry into good grammars, good comps (including sinking money into a house in the catchment - but that’s an investment: win, win!) and good private schools.

The problem with allowing private schools to be charities is that they benefit a minority of the population that is already privileged in comparison to the majority.

Alnwick Garden is a charity. It costs an adult £18 to visit plus transport so benefits a minority of the population that is already privileged in comparison to the majority.

Alnwick garden should not be a charity

@WhileMyDishwasherGentlyWeeps

Why are you still talking about dog shelters?

Children's homes don't pay tax either.

A breeder of pure breed, pedigree dogs will pay tax. So should private schools.

How about the New Economics Foundation?

It's a think tank in London with 50 staff. Should they be a charity?

Well as I said above some of the kids at Brampton are moving from super-selective grammars and presumably choose Brampton because it’s less travelling time for them. In a recent letter from DS’ headteacher discussing A Level results he pointed out that DS’ school has a higher Oxbridge rate than Brampton (and some highly selective independent schools) so their reason for moving to Brampton cannot just be about the results, at least for some of the students.

How about scout groups? Should only those in deprived areas be charities?

How on earth did you come up with conclusion?

Contextual offers are often a blunt tool but yes, very much needed.

But, as OP has pointed out, can still be gamed by the wealthy.

Why though, if high performing children get good results regardless of school? What justification can there be for giving them lower or prioritised offers?