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

[Liikklu]

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.

VAT isn't a luxury tax

We would become a communist state, and the exodus wouldn’t be just limited to private schools, but out of the country altogether - along with their high tax contribution, professional skills.
The country would never recover, there is no way we would ever stay here. It’s quite scary to consider pp actually think this is a good idea. And this is the root issue I have with Labour. We have no idea where they will stop. It’s uncharted territory.

40% sounds unlikely, at least in the first few years. Although I expect house prices around here would get an uplift when the wave of newly squeezed families of ex-private kids need to move into the catchment of the good local schools.

Actually by providing your children with the best education possible, it encourages them to attain the highest grades and get into the best university. In turn, they can hope to obtain the best job possible which then pays well and they therefore will not only payer higher income tax but also have more disposable income to inject into the economy.
It might be a privilege, but it’s a privilege those parents work hard for and make sacrifices for.

I know many black african families who send their sons to private as the local state schools are dangerous. Usually on a family income of 30-50k sometimes lower. People prioritise different things. For some education is more important than buying a house or renting a whole house.

Agreed, it’s creating a brain drain in the long term. Better educated people get better jobs and contribute to the economy. Not the other way round!

No doubt you're correct (though I know nothing of private schools), maybe I'm lucky as my DS went to grammar when I was on benefits (though I never claimed FSM for him as I was too ashamed, I did have to claim from their hardship fund when they went away though), DD goes to grammar now, whilst we're not on benefits, we could never afford private school and can't afford to even buy a house. So I do feel embarrassed when I meet her friend's parents, as it's obvious that they are more wealthy, the kids have tutoring etc (we can't afford for DD to have extra curricular tuition).

Of course it's unfair that there is such a disparity and I understand why parents would their children to go to private schools, or grammars.

A certain type of person threatens to leave the country every time there is a prospect of a Labour government. Yet they so rarely do. I really hope they do fuck off this time.

Apparently you seem to think people need to, in order to not be considered ‘narrow minded’.

I mean, if that makes you happy then go for it, but it’s (once again) ironically quite narrow minded to believe that someone couldn’t possibly have given considered thought to a subject and yet not come to the same conclusion as you.

Just for interest, I have looked up the primary school Starmer sends / sent his children to.

19% Free School Meals.
17.8% SEN, 3% with EHCPs
40% EAL

While these are not ‘extreme’ numbers (FSM a little lower than, national average, SEN a bit higher, EAL much higher) they are not indicative of a school that caters only to a selected subset of the very wealthy, as seems to be being claimed.

If you can't afford a luxury you can't have it.
And if all the kids and teachers who are in the private sector were in the state sector then state education would generally be even better than it is.
I'd start looking for a state place and enjoy the money you'll save.

The very people we desperately need to keep the country afloat are the high tax payers. Net contributors. It’s a dirty word for Labour but how on earth would we keep the lights on without them? I guess we might end up finding out.

Let’s do some simple maths… a has family 2 kids at private school for both primary and secondary… let’s say those fees average 15k a year (which would be on the low side)…
That’s 210K each so 420K… they aren’t spending this on private school anymore so therefore they could spend it on a house in a better catchment area. That’s a substantial increase in house prices to me.

Again, for those in the back, it's not just about working hard.
If it was then a large percentage of the working population could afford private privilege, and then it wouldn't actually be privilege because it would be open to many more children! Also, some wealthy people would no longer be able to have that privilege because they, well, don't work hard at all!
Imagine that - education opportunities that were equal for as many folk as possible? I don't for one minute think Labour are about to produce that either, however surely it's what education should be aiming for, and not a tiered system where those with more can continue to get more?

Regardless of how a change in charitable status might affect you, do you honestly believe that private schools are charities?

At least half of DD class have SEN talking to the parents, unfortunately they are the SEN that doesn't get much support because to get an EHCP is practically impossible.

Those that are moaning about privilege, if you had a SEN child and could afford by scraping the money together each month so they could be supported and stand a chance in life I'm sure you would.

I don't think it's right that parents and children with SEN whom don't have the finances to access private don't get as much support but this policy won't change that and will probably make it worse as some will inevitably have to leave the private sector and put more pressure on already stretched schools

We'll find a way no matter what, we are already scraping the money but considering my DD had stopped talking and was self harming when she went to a big comp it's worth every penny.

This is my post about the difference it's made to her https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5014089-yesterday-i-cried-at-parents-evening

I didn't say VAT was a luxury tax, I said ALL luxuries (such as private school) should be taxed.

Don't be ridiculous. Communist state

Even on this thread there are plenty of parents saying that they can afford to keep their kid in private school, or can tap grandparents for the money, or can get an extra job to afford it.

The charitable status is not changing

Ah ha, so none then, other than copying a table - 20+ years working in education, staff governor, finance committee member.

If you think a school can actually function on c£7K per pupil / per year, you are being daft, we spend nearly £200K per quarter on electricity alone, before staffing, building repairs, expansion planning, new builds etc..

It all has to come from somewhere, and doesn't all come via capitation. we couldn't run on capitation alone.

That's not how it works though. They don't have all that money upfront and presumably they have very little equity (so won't be able to put down a big deposit) and don't spend on holidays or cars or treats or hobbies or private tutoring at present so one might expect some of their money will be diverted in those directions...

It makes it doable. I’ve seen it and it is possible. Private schools are very well funded. They can make cuts or generate income. What are the fees in your school? My son’s comp gets 7k per pupil.

Yep. We crunched the numbers and we could buy a house in the 11+ catchment of any grammar in the UK if we wanted to. In the meantime we’ll absorb the increase to keep DS at Private primary, keep investing, keep our house in an outstanding non-selective state school. I’m diversifying some investments to ensure I get an income. I might buy a couple of houses to rent but undecided.

By the legal definition of charity, that is distinct from the one most commonly understood? Yes.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05222/

“Charity Commission guidance uses the term “the poor” and this terminology is used in case law. For that reason, the same term is used in this briefing.

The Charity Commission acknowledges there is no universal definition of “the poor”. It says the law relating to charities recognises it is a relative term, which depends on the circumstances in individual cases. The Commission guidance says it “does not just mean the very poorest in society and can include people of modest means”.”

also, the full tribunal decision:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/575bd0a740f0b66bda00000e/The_Independent_Schools_Council_v_The_Charity_Commission_for_England___Wales_and_The_National_Council_for_Voluntary_Organisation__2__HM_Antorney_General_v_The_Charity_Com_and_The_ISC.pdf

It's horrible that they are forced to do that because the state system isn't safe.
That said, if they are earning that amount, and get no benefit top ups, then they must be cutting their expenses to the bare bones to afford private and/or get some sort of bursary.