VAT on school fees (you have to read this!)

[EverythingAllatOnceAllTheTime]

Government’s private schools VAT raid ‘could cost taxpayer £1.8bn’

Parents who are forced out of sector are likely to work less or even quit jobs, according to think tank research.

Adam Smith Institute.

Let's not drag heavy-handed authoritarianism, Mao, or Stalin into this, either by implication, comparison, or even name dropping. Hubris much?

Let's not pretend that anything other than naked self-interest lies at the foundation of certain people's concept of what money should be used for.

Let's not pretend that there's plenty of ideology to go around in this debate.

Let's also stop presenting a very privileged set of people as victims here.

*there's NOT plenty of ideology to go around...

Ad hominem attacks, now.

Not able to rebut? Just a grand, “let’s not go there.”

You are allowed your opinions. Thus far, you have said nothing to change mine.

I feel sorry for children having their education disrupted by this policy. I think it's a shame that some children might have to move schools and leave their friends over it. Personally I think applying the policy prospectively would have been better as parents would then have been able to make decisions on future schools for their children with educational stability in mind.

I hope this policy does bring in a lot of money for state schools because, political point-scoring aside, I would hope that not many people are vindictive enough that they would be happy to see children's education interrupted, perhaps in the middle of important exam years, for no material benefit whatsoever for the educational system as a whole. Whatever type of schools children attend, they don't deserve to have their education interrupted on a spiteful whim. The only justification for this policy is that it will improve educational standards generally for ALL children.

OK…. I am going to nail this one as a bot. No one in their right mind would give the government their hard earned (and taxed) cash to distribute rather than their own selected charities. This has reached new levels of ridiculous.

1. your job is so niche that it got made redundant and no one does it? Hardly essential then!

2. the government won't lose your income tax as someone else will do the job, earn the money and pay the tax.

3. if your earnings were being used to pay school fees with no VAT then the government got nothing back. The new employee may spend those wages on things that are vatable

4. if you're not replaced then, that's a shame if it's experience lost for the NHS but money wise the government/NHS will be financially better off not paying your wage.

The "NHS!" coming up so many times in these threads is causing my bullshitometer to make beeping noises.

The thing about the UK is: for both practical and historical reasons, it's a generally known fact that whenever you are trying to frighten the British public into doing something, not doing something, voting for something or not voting for something, one of the first tactics you reach for is "If you don't do what I say, THE NHS WILL SUFFER!"

It's literally the bloody "But, Jones will come back! I'm telling you, JONES WILL COME BACK!!" bit in Animal Farm.

Y’all?

Nice touch of cultural misappropriation no?

The thread has gone very well.

BTW the muppets you refer to, are those who still believe that leopards and spots, are a thing of the past.

You will not prove immune from what your beloved party has got planned,

Enjoy.

There is an article in the Telegraph from yesterday quoting this 1.8 billion figure and stating public support is weaning too. For some reason, I could read it despite the payway, but I cannot link it.

It also says something along the lines that to put 2 DC through private school for 10 years now requires an income of 340k!
To think this won’t have a huge effect on the private education sector and that kids move state instead with those kind of figures is entirely insane or economically illiterate.
And yes, I do take the Telegraph with a pinch of salt.

So what are they actually doing to accommodate all these lovely ex private, would have been private school kids in state? How are they preparing for them to make sure there are the places and no impact on other kids there and the teachers etc. They are just assuming those people will pay the VAT right? And that the private school teachers will move state if need be?
If not, are there enough post 16 places, in particular, for disadvantaged.
There will be a shuffling around.
Would have been Brit going to Eton will go London day, would have been London day will go London grammar, would have been London grammar will go London comp (that is us), would have been London comp will go further away comp? Multiply the same across the country for Sixth Form places.

Quite so.

Dont forget the 6,500 teachers they promised to recruit…

It also says something along the lines that to put 2 DC through private school for 10 years now requires an income of 340k!

That is indeed a rather dreadful number. But shouldn't y'all be getting a bit crosser with the private schools themselves for the way they've increased their fees above inflation every year, steadily, for a generation or so?

Because most of the "That's way too much to pay!" portion out of the 340k has come from 30 years of annual above-inflation increase, not this latest bit of VAT.

That’s not entirely true.

You have had input inflation in various areas plus reform to teachers pensions.

Recruitment/retention is already an issue in PS hence my serious doubts re Labours ability to recruit/retain their promised 6.5k - which assuming 30k salaries, would cost circa gbp 250m per annum.

This will prove to be a monumental cluster fq.

No one's opinions are ever changed on these threads so I don't why we bother other than catharsis.

However, I always love the assumption that private kids will just take up all the grammar places instead as if it was a foregone conclusion.

Here the private schools are reserved for the wealthy kids who couldn't get into the grammar.

It also says something along the lines that to put 2 DC through private school for 10 years now requires an income of 340k

This doesn't make any sense. Having 2 kids at Eton would be £126k per year leaving £214k which most people would agree is quite a lot to live off. And most schools are way cheaper than Eton. If it's saying it would cost £340k for 10 years then that would be fees of £17k per year which would be quite cheap?

There seem to be a number of posters on this thread that work only to support their children's school fees. Most people work to cover the essentials, housing, food, clothing etc. If you can give up work if you no longer need to pay fees then you are affluent. I am somewhst surprised that at least one poster in this position was receiving a substantial busary. I thought these were for children from poorer backgrounds to access the sector.
The suggestion that the policy is a bad idea because people (women?) will stop working and paying tax if their income is no loñger sufficient to cover fees seems one of the weaker arguments. First, many have wider motivations for work (financial independence, intellectual engagement etc.). Second, as has been pointed out if one individual quits a role others are likely to fill it (and pay tax). Third, surely the impact of people quitting will be counterbalanced by others maximising income (e. g. increasing hours) to cover the increased fees.

Grammar schools are a good example.

Both of my children passed their 11+ and went to the grammar school.

We made choices so that could happen such as living in a grammar area and living in catchment of an great primary school. It wasn't the only factor on choosing where to live but was considered.

It's an entirely different conversation about why my children passed and many of their private school or more heavily tutored friends didn't.

However, I accept that is a very privileged education that everyone's taxes are paying for.

I accept that the system works incredibly well for us but harms others.

I am unrepentant of making the decision that was best for my children regardless of my political views.

Because I can't justify grammar schools on any level other than my own children benefit.

If Labour announced they were going to do away with them I'd be personally gutted but I couldn't tie myself in knots trying to argue that they were for the greater good.

This feels like the same issue. You are not a bad person for choosing what you think is best for your child. But accept it for what it is.

Sorry, very early, they mean income before tax don't they? But still, I'd like to see what they are assuming the fees are.

@noblegiraffe It” also says something along the lines that to put 2 DC through private school for 10 years now requires an income of 340k

This doesn't make any sense. Having 2 kids at Eton would be £126k per year leaving £214k which most people would agree is quite a lot to live off. And most schools are way cheaper than Eton. If it's saying it would cost £340k for 10 years then that would be fees of £17k per year which would be quite cheap?”

@noblegiraffe - people on that kind of income pay 50% in income tax pretty much? Or if the spouse is in the 100-125k band 62%?

Eton is 5 years. So 5 years prep school too before that? I assume those are extortionate too. Eton is now for those on what 700k plus, if paying out of income?

A small number of people privately educate their children. An even smaller number are really stretched to afford those fees. Smaller still the number of children who might as a result of the change in VAT will move into state school. Parents stressing about children with SN are likely not to get an EHCP because their child does not meet the criteria (otherwise, let's face it independent schools wouldn't take them). This policy will happen and in January the outcome will just be a small ripple of disgust in the Telegraph.

The only conclusion there is that people going to Eton are ridiculously rich.

If 62% tax on £340k then that's £129.2k after tax. So you're not going to be sending your kids to Eton. But if fees are £30k per year then for two kids you've still got nearly £70k per year after tax to live off.

And I've just googled average private school fees and it's £18k per year.

Also many of the people who go to private school are not paying it out of income.

It's only Mumsnetters who are working their fingers to the bone to scrape the fees.

The Telegraph article says A family would need £340,000 of disposable income to pay the average annual school fees of £17,000 for two children over 10 years.

Which rather sounds like it’s the total cost for two children over the 10 years, not an annual income requirement.

archive.ph/zPRY4

Which rather sounds like it’s the total cost for two children over the 10 years, not an annual income requirement.

But that would assume fees of £17k which is lower than the average, which doesn't sound like something that the Telegraph would assume when trying to make a scaremongering point.