Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

If you’re charged VAT will you remove your child from their private school? I’m v stressed!

1000 replies

Liikklu · 27/05/2024 18:05

We won’t be able to pay the increase. Only hope is asking grandparents for the shortfall which we don’t want to do. Anyone else in a similar boat? Do you think it will literally be a 20% increase on fees or will schools absorb some of it? Our school has said they will address the matter ‘if and when’ it applies.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 27/05/2024 22:30

noblegiraffe · 27/05/2024 22:26

essentially private via catchment

What kind of bollocks is this? The funding gap between private and state schools means that even if the kids at the school are well-off, the school itself will still be subject to the year on year budget cuts that all state schools have faced. That difference in funding does matter.

Yes, and when l taught in one nice school, they got a lot less funding than the one across the city that had nice MacBooks. Whilst out kids had 15 year old computers with no keys.

JustTooMany · 27/05/2024 22:31

Allfur · 27/05/2024 22:29

Someone disagrees with you and you call them angry?

You can’t see the tone? Sorry I can’t help you with that.

RespiceFinemKarma · 27/05/2024 22:31

ArseInTheCoOpWindow · 27/05/2024 22:27

I was a secondary school teacher for 25 years. Some of it in posh areas.

Ive never taught in a school with no dyslexic students. Usually about 3 or 4 at least in a class.

Have you taught in a selective grammar? No parent with a bright dyslexic kid is going to send their child into that hornet's nest with no provisions.

NeverHadHaveHas · 27/05/2024 22:31

Hedgeoffressian · 27/05/2024 22:23

If they had to send their little darlings to a common all garden state schools then maybe there will be more calls to bring up the standard of said state schools.

Show me a ‘hysterical’ post about state schools on this thread.

RheaRend · 27/05/2024 22:31

aiak · 27/05/2024 18:57

It's not the fault of private school parents that your students don't have tampons. It's the fault of their own parents and you should take it up with them. Presumably this is not an isolated tragic situation affecting one student if you are regularly doing it for many - lots of parents are failing their kids. I expect the parents would tell you to fuck off, like they did to my brother (teacher) when he phoned up to try to help the kids attend maths lessons, rather than skive them and damage property.

You are assuming all those who are in poverty are aggressive parents and antisocial kids. That just says it all doesn't it what an attitude you have about those in poverty.

Penguinmouse · 27/05/2024 22:31

aiak · 27/05/2024 18:32

I won't remove mine as it'll be just one year of sixth form.

However, I am disgusted by Starmer's hypocrisy on this matter. He sent his own children to a rather lovely state primary school. Loads of that catchment consists of houses in the £2million region. Like Starmer's house. Just like Blair's went to London Oratory or whatever. The state schools that politicians use are ones that most of us could only dream of. Massive inequality. Selection by price of house. Which, if we destroy our private sector, will happen more and more.

My house is probably worth about a quarter of what Starmer's is worth. I don't have access to the kind of exclusive state schools he does so I sent mine to private school (and I don't have an expensive house to show for it at the end of the education process).

The state sector obviously needs money. Why aren't we taxing those in £1million+ houses who use state schools? They could pay VAT of 20% on the value of their free state place? Seeing as it's OK to tax education and the state sector needs money. Why only tax those of us who've had to pay for private due to the shit local state options. Why not actually tax the rich people who are using state places for free, having gamed the housing situation? Like Starmer himself.

So he sent his children to state school, wants to use money from private schools to improve state schools but he’s the hypocrite, not the Conservative Party who have underfunded state schools for 14 years to the point where you are sending your child to a private school. Ok!

JohnofWessex · 27/05/2024 22:32

I suspect...

  1. It might not happen, or
  2. It could be phased in as with the end of Direct Grant Schools
  3. Schools may well look at their costs etc harder than they have done in the past to try and 'ease the pain'
  4. Those with significant endowments could use income from that over the short term at least

etc etc

Given what private education did for Johnson, Cameron and Sunak I cant understand why anyone wants it for their own children

LuluBlakey1 · 27/05/2024 22:32

RespiceFinemKarma · 27/05/2024 22:25

I've posted on another thread on this today that as a single mum who can only work because my teen boards, I will not be able to add a further 10K pa.

I assume Labour don't want me to give up my job and be a stay at home mum. There is nothing where I live that pays similar and I get a better wage because I am willing to travel. I feel I am making sacrifices to give DD everything I can. Despite some posters on the other thread who said it wasn't parenting, I am sure she is thriving there. She is happy to have her friends around her, gets far more choice in food, has clubs coming out of her ears, always gets her prep done (was a huge issue at home before she boarded) and is very rarely on a device. I know I couldn't offer her that if I was home - facilities not there for most of her clubs in our area - and I would not be happy not to work in a job I love. DD is also dyslexic and the grammar in our area has no dyslexics in their ENTIRE YEAR.

This policy is having a real life impact on our family. It won't be on the super rich who can fling 10k at a bracelet.

It is quite disappointing seeing so many posters punching at parents who are just about managing private and it does scream of trying to claw down anyone daring to try to keep their head above water or making a choice they personally don't agree with. I don't agree with having 2 cars and 3 holidays a year (many of the grammar parents do), but we all make choices based on what we feel is important.

But, it isn't about you. Governments make decisions they believe are for a greater good long-term. Labour has long-held policies that relate to their stance on private education. They have ranged from abolishing it to this watered-down compromise.
Personally, I would abolish private education and offer independent schools the opportunity to apply to become academy chains- if their numbers are robust enough.

milveycrohn · 27/05/2024 22:32

@Thegreatergoodgerald
"Ask your school. The 90 odd percent of people who don’t use private schools don’t know, and don’t care!"
I don't and never did use private schools, but I certainly care. No one knows how many parents will opt out and use state schools instead (for which they already pay through their taxes).
This then will have an effect on local schools, but no one knows how many extra children the local education authority will have to accommodate.
I understand the Labour Party have costsed that 5-7 percent of parents will move their children, but they do not actually know.
To answer the OP question, Rachel Reeves suggested that private schools should make cuts elsewhere, but the thing is, private schools may already be cutting to the bone. The answer is that some schools will be able to absorb the cost; some schools may be able to absorb part of the cost, and some schools will pass it all on to the parents, but we do not know which. The result will be that some parents will remove their children; some schools may close if too many parents remove their children.
These children will then have to be educated in the state system, and the LA will have to find the extra places / funding for them.

Bing123 · 27/05/2024 22:33

Meanwhile the super rich - lets take our Rishi Sunak as our example who has assets of at least £550 million paid about 23% in tax last year , whereas someone earning between 50 and 100k will pay close to 50% in tax. Why is no-one up in arms about that?

NeverHadHaveHas · 27/05/2024 22:33

Garlicked · 27/05/2024 22:28

Sorry, I didn't realise you were the OP and all the other fee-paying parents on this thread 😏

Well you were quoting me, and saying ‘you’ so its a safe assumption that you were talking to me without actually having read my posts.

RespiceFinemKarma · 27/05/2024 22:34

LuluBlakey1 · 27/05/2024 22:32

But, it isn't about you. Governments make decisions they believe are for a greater good long-term. Labour has long-held policies that relate to their stance on private education. They have ranged from abolishing it to this watered-down compromise.
Personally, I would abolish private education and offer independent schools the opportunity to apply to become academy chains- if their numbers are robust enough.

It is my life, so for me this is affecting us very much. It's not about you either then, presumably?

The only people NOT affected by this is the super rich.

milveycrohn · 27/05/2024 22:34

LuluBlakey1Personally, I would abolish private education and offer independent schools the opportunity to apply to become academy chains- if their numbers are robust enough.

milveycrohn · 27/05/2024 22:35

@LuluBlakey1

"Personally, I would abolish private education and offer independent schools the opportunity to apply to become academy chains- if their numbers are robust enough."
Sorry, meant to say that this is a nice idea in theory, but in practise, they can just move abroad, and parents can still opt to have extra tuition after school.

whistleblower99 · 27/05/2024 22:36

LuluBlakey1 · 27/05/2024 22:32

But, it isn't about you. Governments make decisions they believe are for a greater good long-term. Labour has long-held policies that relate to their stance on private education. They have ranged from abolishing it to this watered-down compromise.
Personally, I would abolish private education and offer independent schools the opportunity to apply to become academy chains- if their numbers are robust enough.

No they don’t. Governments make short termist policies which give them power for a short while. All of them - no matter the rosette.

Bululu · 27/05/2024 22:36

@Liikklu hope you get your answer in the Facebook group as this threat has been hijacked by people who do not send their kids to private school.

Whatafustercluck · 27/05/2024 22:36

Karensalright · 27/05/2024 22:27

@Bululu what do you mean “commie comment?@

My reading of it was that anybody who believes that all children should have the same opportunities, regardless of family wealth, is a communist. In short, you're lucky this is 2020s UK and not the early 1950s US. Ffs.

NeverHadHaveHas · 27/05/2024 22:36

Garlicked · 27/05/2024 22:28

Sorry, I didn't realise you were the OP and all the other fee-paying parents on this thread 😏

Also, my DH and I paid over £60k in tax last year, so I sleep pretty well at night knowing we have made a decent contribution to society already thanks.

Garlicked · 27/05/2024 22:37

JustTooMany · 27/05/2024 22:20

I'd have thought with that kind of budget, you probably have expensive holidays, a spare car or similar that you could let go. Maybe a holiday home you could let out, or let out more often. Drop the tennis club or something.

So many assumptions. Your prejudice and ignorance are showing!

Fairly reasonable assumptions. You spend my entire annual income on school fees, yet I could save £4,000 in a year if really pushed.

Allfur · 27/05/2024 22:37

JustTooMany · 27/05/2024 22:31

You can’t see the tone? Sorry I can’t help you with that.

Your tone? Agree

Elizo · 27/05/2024 22:39

Because there aren’t any bright children in comprehensives? Do you think us parents who send our children to state schools don’t value education?

whistleblower99 · 27/05/2024 22:40

I think more higher rate tax payers should start going on UC threads. Considering the majority are state dependents. Start telling people to cut their cloth. Start working how much of their tax contributions fund them. Oh that wouldn’t be appropriate? Why click on the thread? It doesn’t impact you. How judgemental. How tone deaf. But it’s an open forum..absolute irony overload.

samarrange · 27/05/2024 22:41

Ah, I see the "Champagne socialist" card has been played.

Remember the rules, folks:

  • Anyone who earns less than average and votes for a party other than the Conservatives is motivated by envy and trying to get something for nothing.
  • Anyone who earns more than average and votes for a party other than the Conservatives is a hypocritical champagne socialist.
Glad we've got that sorted. As you were!
Bululu · 27/05/2024 22:41

@Karensalright let me know how that goes. Good luck 😉

Letsgetouttahere2023 · 27/05/2024 22:43

Don't vote labour

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.