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?

@wlakaaf Statistically the average remains 19, so not the case across the board, I guess.

We have 25 at our local school. It's very good but parents don't want it because it didn't appear in the Tatler rankings. I see that as a positive.

Sure that's all fine.

So your solution to raising more money to pay for a service like education (which is funded by tax revenues) is to charge higher rate taxpayers more tax via a property tax ..

Well it is an idea but surely it will hit those whose kids go to private school too and who are, generally wealthier and live in bigger houses.

Alternatively we could levy a luxury tax on those who are purchasing what is essentially a luxury product (state education being free and available at point of delivery to all). Something like VAT perhaps?

VAT on private school fees isn’t going to help state education or the inequalities in education. So a very flawed proposal. And as OP has pointed out wealthy people can buy privilege in state education but aren’t being targeted by Labour, whose wealthy MPs who use state education will probably be doing just that

Good effort OP and for what it’s worth I agree - but let’s not pretend the VAT policy is about raising (much needed) funds for state schools - it is the politics of envy at its finest and will just hurt those who prioritise their kids education over a fancy house and nice holidays.

A normal London school isn't a normal school. London privilege.

Right, I get it - so parents that decided to send their own children to state schools should cover 20% of the fees for parents who send their kids to private schools. Make it make sense.

I just think that if people meet 100% of their kids' schooling costs, and other people in band G&H houses get state schooling for free, that it is absurd to charge the private people 120% and the G&H people £0.

Why? You can send yours to state school you know?

Do you honestly think that everyone who lives in band G & H homes are rolling in cash, OP?

All the additional taxable income raised could be used to reinvest into the NHS & education.

Well, I'm inclined to think that families without dc in private school are mainly poorer than those with dc in private school.

So, no, I don't think they should bear the brute of the richer families not wanting to pay their tax.

If the bar for who can and who can't afford private school shifts slightly, I don't think it is that big a deal. People who thought it was ok to have that privilege over others who are less well off can't really argue there's something awful about having slipped to the less well off side.

My house is a high tax band and I pay over 3k a year. It's just an ordinary semi in a very expensive area. My kids go to a very standard comprehensive of which there are a a choice of three in my town....very little to choose between them. Very mixed bunch of kids in all. Nothing selective thank God. Why should I pay more exactly?

You could have bought a house in those lovely catchments too

Did you sign up especially for this thread or are you too embarrassed to use your usual name?

What a ridiculous thing to say. Have you ever been to London? I don't think the first thing that strikes you in a typical London state school is "privilege".

Nope, absolutely not.
But neither are all the private school parents rolling in cash.
And that's part of the point. Only part of it.

And yet somehow it's the parents who send their children to private schools who have the fancy houses and nice holidays.

Nope, absolutely not.
But neither are all the private school parents rolling in cash.
And that's part of the point. Only part of it.

But it's a choice OP, you can choose

My kid has SEN. I was fucked hard. It wasn't exactly a free and easy choice.

I have some sympathy for SEN children but I would abolish private schools. They make me deeply uncomfortable.

If I was KS I would take a different approach, raise the income tax threshold to £20,000 and then have a flat rate of 30%. Then I would put a flat inheritance tax on everyone of 15%. No loopholes and no way around it (no early passing of houses to kids) - that would raise significantly more money to fund public services, but I guess wouldn’t go down so well with the truly wealthy establishment - so let’s instead pick on middle class parents of predominantly SEN kids instead - vote winner!

Just in case you are still struggling with this. Private School Parents = Choice.
Local Comp Parents = Not A Choice.
Do you see the difference? Do you understand now?

State education should be free. Those who chose to opt out and pay for private schooling have made a choice. Those buying expensive houses are paying extremely high levels of tax, will have paid hefty stamp duty and possibly capital gains tax and corporation tax too so they are 'doing their bit'.

The government (whichever colour it ends up being) has to ensure that there are enough entrepreneurs and corporations paying tax - and, we need to make sure that the enormous corporations that take billions out but put nothing/derisory levels of tax back (Meta, Google, Amazon etc) pay their way, not put the already enormous burden on fewer and fewer people, or the wealth creators and large employers will go elsewhere.

Labour have chosen to inflict a horrible 'class envy tax' which is ill thought through, will not improve state education in the slightest - and will probably make things worse.

There are too few people paying tax in this country but demanding excellent public services. I can't remember what the percentages are but it's something like 20% of the population paying 80% of the taxes.

The state should be providing universal health, education, stable and affordable utilities, strong defence and reliable fiscal policies...and the current lot are failing on every one of those! Having tiered systems for state services is wrong, IMO.

How about private schools make some cut backs like how state schools have had to?

Private schools aren't charities so why do you believe they should get charitable status?

But are you uncomfortable at the utterly gross disparity between some state schools and others? Disparity that you can buy your way out of with a very expensive house by a lovely school?

yes some do, in my experience less than you would think - but they aren’t the ones who will suffer due to this policy (which was my point).