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

@PuffPastryFluff level playing field is not necessarily fair - especially when additional needs are present.

eliminating some of the best educational institutions might make things more equal, but there is no evidence it would make education better.

I don’t know how anyone can say with certainty how many will move across

There is probably a consultation by independent schools in progress to find out

@SheilaFentiman Most people won't pull them out that year. Most will wait for the next natural break point and move house in time for that. Some will finish their kids at prep then move into the catchment for their preferred state secondary etc. Lots will rent and get their kid to the top of the waitlist then move back to their real house. I don't know anyone who would simply take their nearest school with an available place...wealthy resourceful parents who care about their kids education aren't simply going to throw their hands in the air.

“What benefits the rest is everyone being in the same boat educationally. “

However, that is not the case anyway because so many top uni places are sold to foreign students anyway? In return for overseas fees which our unis desperately need because they are no longer funded by the Government properly and have lost their EU funding too. And many well paid jobs are given to people educated abroad as well. So what is this whole pretence to people being in the same boat? People are not in the same boat. There is now a huge class of international elite with great education and job prospects all over the world and a lot of them pay their way here and some. Surely we try to keep those people?

What exactly is there in it for a well educated family with options to stay in the country if they a) pay a ton of tax already and b) now the state wants to attack their child’s education too? Even if you can afford the VAT yourself, if your child’s friends are taken out, teachers get sacked etc, facilities become less, I mean are you actually going to keep paying? When other places are going to welcome you and your cash and educational/job privilege etc because those people are in high demand? Are we just going to pretend this is not the actual case?

Well there's no evidence it will make it worse either.

I would like to point out that the rich typically pay a smaller proportion of their income in tax than teachers and nurses. For example one well known example only pays 23% tax on his income.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/middle-class-parents-politicians-bankrupting-councils-2794359

Here is one of the article’s in response to the Times article I referred to above. I was not taking sides. Obviously, all children deserve an education but only some parents can afford to advocate for their children properly and incur the huge legal fees.

Er no

I can comment on the U.K. as it’s the system I use and as I said it has an impact. You are weirdly rude though

@jgw1 - the rich always have options. The well known example you cite can bounce at any time to India with his wife. They will be more than happy to have him.

@PuffPastryFluff it would make it worse for my child specifically and some proportion of the approx 30% of her current school who have Sen diagnosis and already stretched for fees. Not really keen to sacrifice her education and general mental health on the alter of hypothetical long term societal benefit.

Presumably rich couples like the one you refer to have no sense of social responsibility.

Well you don't have to because they are not banning private schools.
You just have to pay tax on your choice to upgrade to the luxury education option.

“Presumably rich couples like the one you refer to have no sense of social responsibility.”

What social responsibility? India is a much poorer country and was colonised by England. Surely you would not disagree that the poor there are more deserving of that couple’s tax money?!

Yes it’s a shame pupils will have to leave. For everyone bar those feeling some satisfaction - which I don’t get. If people want to pay twice it’s freeing up state.

“Well you don't have to because they are not banning private schools.
You just have to pay tax on your choice to upgrade to the luxury education option.”

No - I think she should take the council to court as a matter of principle. I think everyone should do that, to make a point.

Framing it as a ‘luxury’ is pretty disingenuous - I am providing my child with the educational environment she needs but the state is unable to provide. I also pay for them to see a dentist privately because there is no nhs provision anywhere nearby- is dental care a luxury?

what is a luxury to me is being able to take such a cavalier attitude towards the impact of poorly considered policy on real children (both those in and out of the state system) in pursuit of utopian ideals.

@jgw1 You mean your version of social responsibility. DS has high functioning ASD and would have struggled hard in a class of 30 with disruptive character thrown in. He absolutely would not have reached his potential. The way the state system treats asd is to break the kids first then when they become disruptive something but not much happens to support them.

If Labour wanted a socially responsible policy they fix the state system FIRST. Fund it properly FIRST not sacrifice all the SEN kids we already know wouldn't cope. They wouldn't introduce a policy that will make the high performing state schools even more exclusive. Labour have gone with a race to the bottom. It's not responsible in the slightest. It's meant to prey on peoples 'it's not fair' button. It helps no one. If they wanted to raise taxes or introduce a new tax to raise the levels of provision in state schools they'd have my support.

The UK has a problem with immigration but also with those leaving and a massive brain drain. The ones coming aren't who you want and the ones leaving are the ones you want to hold onto. The decision to add 20% on fees will push even more higher earning well educated families out of the country.

I didn’t say you couldn’t comment. I was inviting you to head off to one of the other exemplars you think are doing a better job with a better system.

Almost all of the over million migrants who came to the UK last year came with visas, so if they are not the ones that the UK wants to come here then surely only the UK is to blame?

I am not aware of a version of social responsibility that includes avoiding paying taxes.

But that would make them a migrant and we don't like migrants.

Personally I don't like myself or Rishi as we have both been economic migrants.

It was an example of another system. To counter your point earlier.

I’m happy with my dc education, luckily we have had excellent results in both sectors, so no need.

Anyway it’s a decent thread and your snark is tedious 🤷‍♂️

@jgw1 err ‘The Rich’ don’t typically pay ‘less tax’. You are referring to the difference between the rates of PAYE and paying yourself via a corporation. Both of which are legitimate and not on any way illegal. Top earners on PAYE keep less of every £ they earn than the govt receives. How much more do you think they should be doing?. Paying yourself through a company is typically how many of the well-known staff at the BBC do (and were encouraged to do). It is not tax evasion to do so - they also have to fund their own pension, sickness and other benefits.

Please check your facts before making sweeping generalised statements. Paying yourself via a company is open to anyone who is self employed and is not Solely the preserve of the rich,

we don't like migrants

Don’t you? I mean speak for how you feel by all means, but I don’t share your odd feelings so I’ll leave you to it.

You may not have heard but because we don't like migrants we have to stop the boats.

Like I said you do you.