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?

I haven't denied being privileged.

What I have pointed out is that a certain kind of privilege (buying million pound homes in lovely catchments) is OK. But private schooling is the devil.

Slippery slope? We removed child benefit from the richest? Why not free schooling from them as well?

Good grief, how many of these bloody posts are we going to have to try to avoid in the next six weeks? We get it. Lots of people who send their kids to private school don’t agree with the changes. There have been countless posts already. This exact subject has already been done once today. I had some sympathy for the parents impacted at the beginning, but it’s largely evaporated through endless, ludicrous, self-absorbed posts like this. I bloody wish it was possible to automatically hide all posts with certain key words in the OP.

Nope, you choose to go private, you pay for it. If you don't want to pay VAT on fees, use a state school as most have to do. I don't think it's right that people can pay for a perceived 'better' education, everyone should have the same opportunities, not just those who can pay for it.

No they aren't. Just own it! Look, I get why you're doing it but in your position I would front up and say "I'm buying my child a better education because I can".

Your fees were never going to stay the same. If you can’t afford to pay for fee increases you shouldn’t be in the system.

You can't possibly think that all state schools offer the same opportunities as each other. There is gross inequality.

I can afford it. It will be one year of upper sixth.

I suppose the socialist mob will insist the "wealthy" should pay even more, to plug the gap.

It's the OP who is insisting the wealthy should pay even more to plug the gap.

Multi-millionaires and billionaires who use those properties as additional homes won't be paying this tax.

Also the majority of the properties will be in places like London and the SE. I actually know people who live in such properties and due to the age of the occupants won't be paying this tax either.

Finally there are properties that should be in this category but due to the fact no government wants to reband houses they are in lower categories

No, state schools don't offer the same opportunities. Yes, it's a problem. Will it be solved by not adding VAT onto private school fees? Er, no.

Great so stop moaning them. People far worse off have had to put up with countless polices the past 14 years which they didn’t like.

How about instead of looking for ever dafter ways to make people pay for something that even the most regressive government has never suggested we pay for since free education for all was declared a right..how about instead of that, we just make sure that the laws that say luxury purchases are taxable, are applied to all luxury purchases?

It’s a start.

I don't, I really don't. But I think the money should be funneled back into the state school sector. I don't have elderly relatives but I don't mind my taxes being spent on elder care. Similarly I don't mind my money being spent improving failing schools (and I went to one). But there is always a choice and sometimes those choices are thinking of the individual or the wider community - even if your child has to take the perceived hit.

There may be some inequality but nothing like the inequality caused by private education.

The thing is OP, people vote through their pockets. So if you are voting someone else funds something then the general consensus from those not paying will be yes, do it!

Those that have to fund it will say sod off.

You just have to find the right policies around the above, and then people will support you.

Not all people who use state schools are failing to prioritise their child’s education 😂
The fact is you make a choice. My choice was to live in a flat that cost 130K that is the catchment for good / outstanding schools. I earn over 80K a year but chose not to buy a house, we therefore live in a flat. I have great holidays, loads of disposable income and have made choices that enable me to do this. If you choose to send your child to private school and choose not having holidays etc in order to do this then that is your choice. I am not envious in the slightest of anyone who sends their child to private school as you have made a choice. I have this choice and could afford this choice but I have not chosen it. You’ve made your choices, it’s not anybody else’s fault that non-charities are potentially going to loose their charitable status and that wealthy establishments choose to pass this onto parents. If your school does choose to pass it on they’re likely a small school run by a proprietor who could be anybody and therefore not worth sending your child to or they manage their finances badly or they want more money for themselves.

Erm. No. Where I live a very standard small house in a not so nice area would put you easily in bands G or H. In fact I've just checked and band F is up to 160k - you'd be lucky to get more than a 1 bed flat here in Bristol for that!!!

Also how would you deal with people who receive top up benefits? Most people I know living in a rented house with 2 or 3 kids here on a middling to low wage receive two credits and/or housing benefits, won't have a room each for every child and STILL live in houses worth more than 160k simply because there is often not any other option here.

To think that someone in a 160k property is 'rich' or anywhere near in a wealth bracket to be considering private school in the vast majority of cases is frankly laughable!

VAT on private school fees has absolutely nothing to do with extra funding for state schools and everything to do with the politics of spite and envy.

State schools will continue to be underfunded and those parents who would have gone private will pay for private tutors instead. I expect a lot of private schoolteachers will choose to become tutors rather than re-enter the state system.

The ones who will lose out will be the children from poorer families who would have benefitted form assisted places and bursaries. Their parents won't be able to pay for an expensive catchment area nor private tutoring.

What about grammar schools, surely those parents should be charged more?

Or how about the parents who can afford holidays abroad?

This myth that any state school especially comprehensives are comparable to private education is just that, a myth.

At their most basic schools have better facilities and smaller class sizes. My DC school (outstanding secondary comprehensive, 'leafy', London) has class sizes of 34 and is making staff redundant, cutting subjects and cancelling all spending. That's no glue sticks for anyone. No photocopying and three to a computer.
Glue sticks ffs.

The cohort of 'affluent' parents can and do raise money for computers etc but they can't raise money for staff because no fundraising guarantees an income stream needed.

What the school needs is more money. Each pupil comes with some money. Each pupil needs to come with more. Here's looking at you central government.

This policy isn't about raising £££ for education. It's about beginning the slow process of levelling the playing field for all young people.

I want more tax revenue for all state schools but making the comparison between private schools and state comprehensives is idiotic. You could buy any house you like wherever you but currently that's not going to give the school more glue sticks

Abolish private schools. State schools get

Will this guarantee admittance to the high performing schools near the expensive homes?

A fairer way for state schools is to scrap fee-paying schools altogether.
If you remove the option to pay a fee for a school and only have state schools then the standard of education would radically increase across all schools. See, for example, Finland.

Some people just don't want this. They don't want unfair schooling. They don't want massive NHS waiting times. It's the rich lining the rich. It actually benefits me quite well but... I don't care. Because it isn't just about me, is it? It's about everyone and most people can't afford to go private.