To have though of a fairer way to fund state education than VAT on private?

[wlakaaf]

State schools are in desperate need of funding.

Money needs raising.

Instead of sticking 20% onto private fees - when those people are already paying 100% of the costs for educating their child, how about this:

Parents of children currently in state schools ought to contribute to their education on a means tested basis. There would be no argument over means, it would be a simple reference to the council tax band of the house you live in. We have bands A-H. I would propose that people in band A-F pay nothing. People in band G pay a fixed charge per year and people in band H pay a higher fixed charge per year.

Keir Starmer has used money to buy a massively expensive house, worth in the region of £2m, in the very tight catchment of a lovely state primary. This is buying privilege, same as buying private education. So why does he get away without paying?

@S33dHead but why start with this? Why not start with SEND funding for instance?

Millions of people work in the civil service, pretty sure they are able to do more than one thing at a time.

Why not start with extra teachers and MH support in every school? SEN funding is important too however I’m not sure you can prioritise any one thing when making a “start”.

Ask the Tories why they have completely run down SEN provision?

We don’t know what will be in subsequent budgets.

But where are these teachers coming from, where mental health experts? Targets are not being met for teacher training now, why will 6,500 people suddenly decide teaching is for them.

At least a third of newly qualified teachers leave after 5 years.

I assume school budgets will be increased to pay for these teachers. Schools are having to make redundancies because they can’t afford the staff they have. Having to reduce the subject options, asking teachers to teach subjects they are not expert in. Using non qualifieds to take classes in Primary schools. No resources to support children with SEND.

Massive increase in pension contributions not fully funded by the Government

Or, OP, vote in a government who actually give a shit, and use our taxes for schools and public services rather than for tax breaks for those who don’t need them?

Only the dense would think this fair VAT change is solely about raising money.

I had thought Labour was going to tax the big companies who avoid tax and use that money to fund everything, as well as the super rich.

I know a lot of people on here don't believe it but it feels they've decided to target middle class families instead and won't get anywhere near as much. It isn't going to raise anything like as much as going after the big guys would and it's hurting so many who aren't burdening the state sector - we don't want to take the money and use up funds!

What an offensive post - education is a human right. Children in state schools are not "burdening" anyone. Also ludicrous to suggest that parents choose private schools based on altruism.

But household A are not choosing to go private. The difference between a great state school and private is still huge.
Both households have made choices.

They aren’t targeting middle class families. That’s what the Tories do. Middle class families aren’t able to afford private education, the demographic who does use private education is the wealthy.

It’s a start.

I know

The more I read, the more I'm convinced private schools should have been taxed all along and the more shocked I become at the level of entitlement of some posters.

I'm now looking forward to it being implemented.

It's not about kids already in schools being a burden, its about recognising there isn't enough money and not adding more kids onto their plate. I don't want to add to the costs. Why are they forcing us to use their money up?

You didn't ask why they aren't going after the big guys either. Starmer also now isn't adding tax for the super rich I assume because he now is one.

Tell that to the majority of the kids families I know.
2 already left! That's in one year group in one school, now costing the state £14k a year.
The policy hasn't been thought through and properly costed.

What that they’re not middle class? Numbers have already been dropping in private education, that’s not going to change. It’s the wealthy who use it and who need to pay VAT whilst as a country we focus on state education, levelling up and reducing inequality.

The only people fixating on this policy are those who don't want to pay the extra. The rest of us just see it as part of a suite of policies aimed at raising public funds.
The linking of this policy to improved funding of the state education system is just a tool to explain it. Its designed to make the vast majority of the electorate who don't benefit from private schooling question why the loophole exists, and whether they want that to continue when the country needs every penny it can get.
Its a popular way of raising money as it affects few, those who are affected will be percieved as capable of affording it, and it strikes a light blow at what many people see as an undesirable contributor to social inequality.
And it's been very effective in doing these things. If anything the threads and conversations its inspired have acted as reinforcement because unfortunately they have brought out the worst in some of the more privileged people, who have dropped their masks and demonstrated the extent to which they are happy to disadvantage less fortunate children to protect and gatekeep their own advantage.

Companies avoid tax via legitimate means. The UK by itself can do nothing about it. The OECD is working with international governments to address profit shifting and the UK government is a big part of that, but if you think that the UK government can address this alone you are wrong I’m afraid.

Well presumably people send their children to private schools because they believe they 'add value' over and above state education. In which case why wouldn't VAT be appropriate? As PP said, tax is effectively already a means test. I wouldn't mind paying more tax if I knew it was being correctly used to better fund state education for all - and I no longer have school age children.

People living in expensive houses already pay extra tax for the privilege, through stamp duty, council tax etc. And rightly so.

You could argue for an increase in those property taxes if you think that would help. I don't really understand why you think this means that we shouldn't apply VAT to the luxury of private school fees though.

State education should absolutely be free at the point of delivery. It's a public service. If we tax wealthy families properly, they will already be contributing adequately through general taxation. They should only have to pay extra if they decide that they want to pay extra for the premium option, which should be taxed as the luxury that it is.

I agree with the principle, why should private school parents pay this extra tax (£100k for 2 kids at least), when there are plenty of people who are more well off not having to pay it - either because they don’t have kids in school or they are happy with their local state.

That's a bit like saying, why should I have to pay VAT on my luxury handbag when a richer person doesn't have to pay for the free paper bag that they're using instead.

Private school is a luxury that you don't have to choose. If you don't want to pay VAT, state schools are available.

I suppose the theory is that great state schools tend to be a product of - of course, of good teachers and Head (although there are many great teachers & leaders in struggling schools valiently trying their best) , but also - a certain critical mass of invested parents -whether it be giving their time on the Board of Governors, PTA, supporting fund raising events, encouraging and role modelling good behaviour etc. I know every child's parents want the best for them, but there needs to be a critical mass of households that aren't struggling and have the headroom/resources/desire to support it above and beyond the minimum requirement.

I totally understand that some parents don't have the luxury of time to help improve a school, so opt private. That is fine & a choice. It comes with percieved benefits to that child/parent and a cost to the state school which would have benefited from their support.

I actually do feel for the parents who went private, but can't really afford it. If VAT goes on, at least future parents will know where they stand on their finances before they opt in.

Come on, let’s be honest.

The advantage of private schools is not that you are paying for a better quality of education (which arguably you could also get in an outstanding school) but that you are paying for exclusivity because the school is selective.

When people on MN discuss how their child can’t go to the terrible local state school, what are they taking about? The quality of teaching? I doubt it, because state schools have to employ teachers who actually have a teaching qualification whereas private schools can employ anyone. My guess is that it’s the smaller class sizes, the better behaviour, the better facilities, the better opportunities. And that is a privilege you have to pay for.

In a private school, you know your child will be sharing a classroom with other children whose parents are paying a lot of money for their education. Behaviour will be better, the teacher will be spending a heck of a lot less time doing classroom management. The school can focus on education rather than social issues.

They certainly won’t be sharing a classroom with the scared refugee children who can’t speak a word of English. With the traumatised child who is in Care because of abusive/drug addicted parents. With the ones who are only in school 50% of the time because parent is depressed and doesn’t get them up in the morning. With the children with behaviour issues who are on a managed move from another school who can’t cope with them anymore.

In state non selective schools, a lot of time is taken up managing social and behavioural issues.

Yes there are a some state schools in very expensive areas with a small catchment who are exclusive because of high house prices. However, those schools are the minority and they are still obliged to take children with an EHCP or in Care or with significant medical needs - distance from school comes after those criteria.

I think just be honest about why you are paying for a private education and not all this faux ‘I am taking my (well-behaved, academic, 100% attendance, healthy, sporty child) out of the state education system so there’s more room for the rest of you!’

I’ve got an idea which will truly raise billions.

Annual uk spend on food and non alcoholic drinks £120 billion.

Labour introduces its own range of food ie. labour ketchup, labour tea, labour coffee, labour carrots, labour cooking oil…you get the jist. They are labour products and VAT free…but if you want that fancy Heinz ketchup, organic strawberries, Tetley tea or extra virgin olive oil then 20% VAT should be paid. After all they are a luxury and you have a tax free option available to you.

In fact those Heinz ketchup purchasers are actually subsidising your Labour ketchup thanks to the 20% tax.

Shall we say 60% (or insert arbitrary percentage) only buy labour foods. That’s 40% of £120 billion vatable or £9.6 billion (insert alternative arbitrary value) raised for the public purse by taxing folks who just don’t want a cup of labour coffee in the morning.

This policy took me 2 mins to think up and will really raise class warfare at the checkouts….and on mumsnet….

I think that a coherent position.

But there are two ways of buying a perceived better education: private schools, and expensive catchment areas.

If you want to discourage buying privilege, wouldn't jt make sense to support VAT on private school fees and also support the OPs proposal? Then you are using the tax system to disincentive both ways of buying perceived educational privilege, not just one.

Doing both would raise more money, which could be earmarked for the most impoverished state schools, reducing inequality both between state and private and between state schools

Explain to me why household B are the ones who should be paying even more tax? Surely it should be household A who are asked to pay more in an equitable system.

How is it equitable if one family ends up paying more?

Family A could live in a much smaller house in a location that's less favourable for work than Family B because they've prioritised different things. Why should Family A subsidise Family Bs lifestyle choices? BOTH families can ultimately afford to buy a property in an area with a good school if they earn £100,000. Family B have made a series of decisions NOT to move somewhere with good schools.

Family A could live in Manchester and have to go through the grammar school system and pay a fortune to tutor their child to ensure they get a place.

Family A could live somewhere out in the sticks with little public transport and less job prospects. It means their child won't get to do work experience in an sector which is heavily London based.

Family A might have a child with SEN needs. I know a couple of private schools around here refuse to take on children with additional/behavioural issues.

The thing about this whole conversation is the people who go on about VAT on private schools aren't also loudly talking about the need for a greater range of educational places which are more suitable for kids with SEN / Behaviour issues. It's just about making sure that everyone else suffers with their children. It's tall poppy jealously in a race to the bottom. No thought is given to the other measures that are desperately needed because inclusive policies are the problem.

I fail to understand how the next government will change that because if anything they are more into inclusivity than this one. They think the bright, rich kids will somehow pull everyone else up magically. The current one is obsessed with cost cutting yes. But I don't see the approach proposed as fundamentally being better either.

There is a missing the point in here too. One that is about parents doing parenting (there are plenty of well off parents who aren't and who are very much part of current behavioural issues in schools - ask a teacher) and one that is about the failure to provide an appropriate educational setting for many children at the expense of themselves and absolutely everyone else.