20% vat on fees

[namechangedforthisone35]

IF Labour get in and IF the 20% does get added to fees, how many private school pupils will be moved to state? I have three kids (one not school aged yet) and in private school. One of many reasons because I didn't want them in a class of 30. I couldn't afford the vat increase so would have to move them but then that class of 30 becomes, what, 40?! In an already strained and unresourced system?!

Wwyd?

Y - I'd have to move kids to state
N - I'll pay the vat

Started reading it but to be honest stopped at the 'there is no need to send a child to private school' in one of the opening paragraphs. I'd rather not send my kid to private school but given he's spending his days being the 'good influence' on a table of kids who swear at the teacher and try and throw their chrome books out the window, I'm taking drastic action. Wouldn't it be nice if all kids needs were being met at state school?

Indeed and you've described our position. We're comfortable but I still look at some cars on the road, designer clothes and huge houses and think 'wow' imagine being that wealthy. I find it strange to think people look at me like that when I drive a beaten up Skoda and buy my clothes on Vinted. But you're right when it comes to private school people are blinkered. Including Labour.

“The challenge for politicians aiming for a fairer Britain is to make this section of society care about inequality in general rather than who can afford which private school”.

I think it’d be quite nice if society made others care a little more about those who are funding them.

I pay over £70k income tax every year yet somehow in the author’s eyes I am the problem. Well I’d love to see how society funds itself if the likes of me decide it’s no longer worth it to contribute at such a level.

Quite frankly it’s a disgrace how higher earners are treated in this country. It needs to be understood that there needs to remain sufficient incentive to work at such levels. Constantly taking from them through marginal tax rates of up to 62%, exclusion from 30 hours funded nursery care, exclusion from tax free childcare saving scheme, exclusion from child benefit, VAT on school fees etc. while at he same time funding everyone else to receive those same benefits eventually starts to become uneconomical for the individual.

I once received a 20k bonus and actually ended up with less money than had I not been awarded it. The entire sum was taken in tax and increased nursery obligations. It will have been used in part to fund others receiving funded nursery hours, some of whom wouldn’t even be working.

Now tell me again who are the ones who care about inequality and are doing something about it?

I know lots of wealthy people who don’t for a second don’t think that they’re wealthy. Household incomes that put them in the top 5% of incomes but by the time they’ve paid the mortgages, fed and clothes 3 or 4 kids, upgraded the cars, booked a couple of holidays and paid the school fees … they don’t think they’re wealthy.
Suddenly a few hundred grand doesn’t seem to stretch very far.

‘I think it’d be quite nice if society made others care a little more about those who are funding them.

I pay over £70k income tax every year yet somehow in the author’s eyes I am the problem. ‘

same,
more in fact. DP too… yet somehow I can still have the opinion that private schools are businesses not charities and deserve to be treated and taxed as such.

How much voluntary tax do you pay or are you just advocating for others to pay more?

I really don't want to curtail the private sector, i saw 2 very average primary boys get a series of A* and pupils of the year plus a load of sporting success by going to a private school.

But of course, the emphasis though, should be improving state schools, my own DD went to a terrible primary, moved to an excellent one, she then went from an avg secondary to a brilliant 6th form college (all state) A levels,Uni, got a great degree, 3 years post grad, her career is flourishing and doing better than her privately educated cousins.
The state sector, with correct funding and great leadership can perform very well but perhaps the biggest difference i ve seen is supportive parenting, both of the school and the children.
I'm a single parent and did all i could to support my DD & teach her rspect for teachers, do her home work and school rules.

As i keep repeating, Labour need to flesh out these plans.

Aside, my per term figures were from 3 schools in Somerset & Devon (that i have had involvement in) but the figures a pp said of 5.5k per term, isn't so far removed from my lower figure.

So all the posts referring to ‘elite’ etc includes you in this bracket anyway

whazzabanger if you pay at least £70k in income tax then you're earning way more than me and DH. Ironic that you consider me as elite for sending kids private. I'm choosing to spend my money differently, so what? It's a strange society we live in when spending on over-sized SUVs and flash holidays is seen as a great way to spend our disposable income but educating our children isn't.

And yet again your assumption is that everyone who choses private is that wealthy. Many of us don't have big mortgages/ holidays abroad/new cars/3-4 kids precisely because we pay school fees. If you are in am area with poor state schools then paying for fees for 1 child is cheaper than moving to an area with good state schools.

You earn more than me and I'm sure you give your children privilege through the area you live in/holidays you have etc etc yet you don't see yourself as the elite?

You'll be paying a whole raft of taxes on SUV's and Holidays.

You can still get good education in the state sector and/or Grammar.

Maybe they get to look down on those dimmer party people they mentioned earlier

Who knows. It’s odd to post so disparagingly about ‘elites’ then it turns out they are one anyway

They must have a household income in excess of £400k per annum after pension contributions if they are paying in excess of 70k income tax each.

Always nice to be lectured about being elite by someone living in a household pulling in the the thick end of £1/2 million every year pre-tax.

“I know lots of wealthy people who don’t for a second don’t think that they’re wealthy. Household incomes that put them in the top 5% of incomes but by the time they’ve paid the mortgages, fed and clothes 3 or 4 kids, upgraded the cars, booked a couple of holidays and paid the school fees … they don’t think they’re wealthy.
Suddenly a few hundred grand doesn’t seem to stretch very far.”

I am happy for people like this to spend money on their kids and bring up the next generation so they work and contribute.

There is something very wrong in our society if we are trying to penalise those that produce a good well rounded next generation but incentivise the poorer to breed and then don’t provide good quality childcare/state education for free. It is all upside down.

I have no issue with families prioritising their kids and looking out for them. It is what I want them to do. Once you start overtaxing this lot you have had it as a society.
The young doctors are already moving to Australia and the lawyers to Dubai. Note these are the ones that WONT inherit substantial amounts but have to rely on their income. And income no longer pays, even for the professionals. The very rich at the top like private equity structure their way around it via dividends and cash carry. The sitting duck professionals with children will just have to leave.

What a clanger 😬

But I have noticed people who lecture with a level of supposed superiority always have to tell people the high tax they’re paying.. whoops

There was an inheritance tax one similar a poster asking everyone to give it up until they do yes have a large amount coming and no they wouldn’t give it away, but it would go to their dc

Surely when you’re earning 400k your kids don’t even need to do well, they can drop out or do charity work and have a (paid off?) house to live in?

whazzabanger are you my SIL? Thinks we're mad for sending our kids private despite her DH sitting on millions after selling his company and her not having to work. Their DD is 18, didn't do great at her state school and now working in a low paying job but already has a shiny new car and they're looking at buying her a flat. But that's different of course.

Assets aren’t properly taxed in this country. So of course those sitting on assets are more than happy for you to pay a lot of income tax!
If you want your kids to get ahead some do just pay off their uni debts and buy them a house rather than spend on private school. Because that is more tax efficient for their own.

How is any of this relevant in anyway to the discussion?

What someone earns and what they do with their money is entirely up to them, just pay your taxes, that new shiny car will attract 20% tax and on going vehicle duties.
Should they not have to pay 20% VAT on the vehicle because they already pay a lot of tax?

So why should your school fees be exempt?

Absolutely45 so if I buy a gas-guzzling LandRover Defender for what, £70k, I'm actually contributing to society whereas if I choose to spend that money on 4/5 years of school fees to educate my child (which would mean he's not using up state resources), then I'm not? Bit twisted I think.

The poster keen for others to stump up more could offer up 20% of similar. Hand over their own money instead

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/24/britain-richest-10-per-cent-wealthy-inequality-labour-private-schools

I am always amazed at these articles and images of actual school children. Does the newspaper get those children’s consent to publish their image all over the press? I would be so angry if those were my children! Is there no safeguarding against this kind of thing?

The author of that article is entirely disingenuous anyway citing persons on 60k. Top 10% earners are paying a ton of income tax for the rest already. The reason they don’t feel rich is because the state already taxes them through the roof and once they do the Maths a lot of them realise that it does not always make sense to work and lose benefits. That is the whole point of the fiscal drag and the huge marginal tax rates. The journalist needs to go on a taxation course to understand the basics. And possibly a child safeguarding course as well.

Britain 2024 - the message to the world is very clear. We do not give a f.. about education or educating our own. There is no value in education here. We underfund our state schools in real terms, have dire quality issues across some of them, cannot recruit teachers AND despite the one thing we do have, a thriving private sector, that the rest of the world admires, we are now going to attack that too. The message is very much Britain does not give a sh.. about Education. It has no real value here. Only hoarding assets does and house prices. Go figure.

Point here is that there is a VAT free alternative in the state and Grammar sectors.

Its your choice to send children to a private school (i'm not talking about those who are forced into private due to lack of SENs provision)

So you admit your kids get a better education than most do in the state sector, why don't we address this? the argument over VAT tbh is a distraction.

Buying nice new LR does add to the UKs manufacturing economy, employment and tax take, your school fees for 2 children over 5 years would be about 3 Land Rovers, not 1.

£40k a year for day fees is certainly not the norm. Perhaps there might be outliers who charge that, but that is certainly not the case at even the more expensive schools. The average private secondary is less than £18k.

You can still get good education in the state sector and/or Grammar.

This is not the reality in many areas. At our nearest state primary (in an affluent area), a lot less than half of 11 year olds left primary having achieved the expected standard in English and maths. That is not what I’d class as a “good” education. We are not in grammar or selective school catchment for secondary. There is no state alternative near us for academic children.