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?

Yes it is doing something about inequality, I agree. It's making it worse, by making the gap between those who can and can't afford it wider. All the evidence shows that this policy won't raise any significant amount of money, due to it pushing some children from private into state school. Even labours over optimistic view is that it will increase state schools budgets by 1%, which won't make any meaningful change.

All it will do is push the children whose parents are struggling to afford fees into state school. Children like my brother who has mild ASD, who dont qualify for an EHCP, but just can't cope in a class of 35, and was experiencing significant mental issues. Both my parents took on second jobs to scrape together his school fees, we were not crazy rich, we grew up in a council house. They applied for charitable bursaries via the school.The extra 20% would have been unacheivable, and the bursary would have likely reduced or gone due to the school cutting costs. He thrived in this very average private school due to the smaller class sizes and better behaviour of the other children.

There will be the arguement of 'well if everyone can't have it no one should have it', a very sad Race to the bottom perspective which seems to be really prevalent on here. One which doesn't take into account all children are different with different needs. I was fine in a state school (luckily as no way could they have afforded 2 sets of fees), my brother wasn't. My parents fought hard to get his needs met without costing the government anything, this is a proactive approach which should be applauded, not scorned.

Who on earth would vote for this?
YABU.

Absolutely! I saw an interview with Rachel Reeves yesterday, who i previously thought had a really sensible perspective. She declared who wont raise income tax, but will tax pensioners savings! Talk about aiming low! People who have worked hard and saved all their lives, let's take more from them.

And then the middle earners scraping together school fees as their child's needs can't be met in state schools, let's tax those too.

It's typical labour policies of tax hard working people, but they are doing it by the back door to try to change people's perspectives of them as 'boom and bust' party.

I would much rather see income tax raised fairly for all, that would be an honest way to raise much needed funds.

I have a better idea.

The VAT on private school fees could be used for 100% bursaries for children who struggle in mainstream schools due to SEN, disability or behaviour issues. The caveat being that the local authority gets to choose which children get the places.

This would reduce the burden on state schools. Disadvantaged children would get a place in a more suitable school with smaller class sizes.

Who could object to that? I would definitely have looked at this option for my SEN DS.

Regardless of whether VAT is added to private schools or not, OP's proposal would raise money which could be used for the most deprived state schools, and which would be paid for mostly by the more affluent. It would tax one way of buying educational privilege -- it seems like a reasonable idea in principle.

(In practice it would be yet another complication to the tax system, which isn't ideal).

Parents of children currently in state schools ought to contribute to their education on a means tested basis.

You must be joking. I'd be homeschooling my kids. Many others won't educate their kids at all than pay a penny.

They could, it was called a state grammar school until Labour did away with them
Keep everyone at the bottom of the pile, why not? 😉

I thought pensioners were one of the most affluent demographics these days though?

And let's face it lots of them didn't work hard. Many sit in very expensive properties either as a result of inheritance or combination of other factors such as no university fees, affordable property, the ability to raise a family comfortably on one wage, no childcare fees etc..

It's entirely sensible to target the savings of the most well off before the most vulnerable.

@LakeTiticaca raising house prices in areas where there are a handful of grammar schools and affluent parents paying for tutoring to get DC through the 11+. But this VAT policy will get rid of inequality - not!

They had enough money to pay in the first place most people can't afford private school so they are not poor they just need to cut back on luxuries like holidays nails and updated cars.

@jannier many parents have already made cut backs in the first place to send DC to private school. There may not be any more cut backs they can make

If the local school was absolutely dire and your child had been bullied and was getting nowhere academically and mental health was in tatters, are many posters saying, if they could just about afford private school, would they continue to send their child to the state school or would they send their child to local private school which had excellent pastoral support?

@wlakaaf
You don't live in the real world.

Do you honestly think a 20% contribution from the hardest hit middle tier group is going to improve state education.

There will be a reduction in birth rate and the poorer families will carry on having larger families.

If you resent paying high school fees, why not sell your house and do the same as KS.

You won't of course because you won't want to lose the many privileges a private education brings.

I would much rather see income tax raised fairly for all, that would be an honest way to raise much needed funds.

The purpose of tax in the UK is to aid wealth redistribution and control inflation, not raise funds.

Considering the top 10% of the population own c45% of all wealth and the bottom 50% only hold c9% the only "fair" tax rises are ones that target the top.

How would you do that and work?
I don't agree with the principle of state school fees, bit giving up your job yo homeschooling would surely cost you more than paying the fee?

How would you do that and work?
I don't agree with the principle of state school fees, bit giving up your job yo homeschooling would surely cost you more than paying the fee?

It would be a question if is it worth working at all.

There are a few left, we live in an area which still has them. But a friend who is an 11+ tutor has said that enquiries have doubled, mainly from parents of children in primary private schools who will target grammar schools rather than the private secondary schools they had intended to send their children too before this policy was announced. Pushing out children from state schools who can't afford intensive tutoring.

Attempts by governments to improve social mobility will never be effective, as people will always find ways round them. Despite all the 'I want equality for all' protests, most parents are quite rightly interested in their child's needs above the wider population and will do whatever they can to improve their children's opportunities.
Blair, Starmer etc sent their children to high acheiving state schools, because they can. And there is nothing wrong with that. Who can honestly say that if they were in their position they would send their child to a failing school. No one.

It's up to each parent to make the best choices they can for their child, and if they aren't happy with their child's school, move to another, or become a school governor, or volunteer in your child's school with pta or reading etc. The most effective change comes from the local commuinity itself, rather than government interference.

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

You don't pay 100% funding. Where do you think the teachers at your children's schools were educated?

If they have QTS (I know they don't need to) then they have got that from the state sector.

If that was the case, my first action would not to put my family financially at risk by paying for private school, no…..

If they were getting bullied I would raise this as an issue with school and if they did not come up with effective solutions I would go to Governors, local authority, MP if necessary etc and then if all else failed ask for them to be moved to another local authority school.

If they were not doing well academically I would want meetings with the school to find out why, join the board of Governors, set up a parent pressure group, and then pay for private tutoring as necessary.

If nothing improved and I could not get the council to move them into another suitable state school then I would move house.

I feel that the cost of sending them to private school is a huge financial burden on a regular family and there are big risks if/when your financial situation changes.

Margaret Thatcher began the closure of grammar schools.

@Rainyblue but paying for tutoring and moving house are really only able for privileged few, same as private schools

Unless someone had many children in school, it's unlikely that it would cost more for the schooling fee than stopping work.

And parents should and do contribute financially to children's schooling - many schools have a termly contribution, trip fees, stationary fees, numerous requests from PTA for donations in one form or other. But this is done on basis of goodwill- we are happy to pay it as we see a direct impact on our children's school experience. Make it a mandatory tax where people don't directly see its impact, and people will be much less willing to pay. Our area isn't particularly affluent, but people pay in what they can to get better outcomes for their own children.

@Bushmillsbabe when DS was at Primary school and they had their national curriculum swimming lessons, school asked for voluntary contributions of £2pw to go towards the coach fare. The amount of parents who refused to pay this, as it was voluntary, was staggering. Interestingly the parents who could least afford it were the parents who paid.
The parents who refused to pay were very open about not paying

I didn’t say that they weren’t?
I said that if my child was struggling at the ‘dire’ local school (I would like to know what the definition of ‘dire’ is, but that’s a different discussion) no I wouldn’t pay for private school, I would look at other options first because I would not want to stretch my family financially that much.

The local primary school near to me was Ofsted RI until a significant number of parents relentlessly lobbied the council for improvements. A few years later it was Outstanding. It can be done.

Finally someone talking sense.

Poor and lower than average income/asset pensioners obviously need to be protected and any changes must not harm those with low incomes or low asset values.

But there's no sense at all in a pensioner with income of £50k pa paying less tax than a worker earning that same £50k. There should at least be parity based on income.

I'd suggest imposing NIC on ALL income, including pensions, property letting income, dividends, etc., with the same lower thresholds as with wages. Or even better, scrapping NIC completely and increasing basic rate tax to compensate.

We can't keep hiking tax on workers. "Rich" pensioners also need to dip into their pockets.

All of this could be said about Starmer's super selective grammar. It has far less FSM that the schools around it. The primary was to all intents and purposes a private one too. Grammar seems to go under the radar but is just as based on privilege if not more because it is so based on specific location.