Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

The councils need to find spaces for all children!!

661 replies

HooverIsAlwaysBroken · 13/12/2024 16:09

https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/surrey-runs-out-of-state-school-places-for-private-pupils-as-vat-raid-bites/?amp

I am relieved to see that the Surrey is also looking at options to expand class sizes and use transportation to take children to other areas. They really need to get their act together quickly.

all children has a right to state education.

Surrey runs out of state school places for private pupils as VAT raid bites

Surrey County Council has admitted it does not have enough state school places to accommodate children transferring from private schools, following the government’s introduction of a 20 per cent VAT levy on independent education.

https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/surrey-runs-out-of-state-school-places-for-private-pupils-as-vat-raid-bites?amp=

OP posts:
Thread gallery
15
louddumpernoise · 14/12/2024 14:59

Ja428 · 14/12/2024 14:49

1p on the 40% rate of tax. Fair and raises money transparently. And how about those like Starmer in 2million pound houses helping out the state schools that their kids use for free, with a contribution?

VAT on private won’t raise 6bn. That’s fiction. I thought the figure touted by Labour was 1bn. But it won’t even raise that. Millions going to be paid back to schools like Eton, who will be receiving £5m in reclaimed VAT. Millions of pounds worth of upfront fee payments are being held by private schools. If paid before Labour got in, then no VAT can be charged to those parents for schooling in 2025 and onwards. Thousands of children exiting private schools - will continue at exit points. A explosion of SEN kids coming out of private. More pressure on the state sector.

like I say, I thank God that my own SEN kid has left and is adult.

Would raise £1.3billion and would mean households on modest incomes, who cannot afford PS, paying it.... very unfair.

Not even come close to raising the money needed to unfreeze tax thresholds.

Yes CT bands for those in E, F G H properties need to be increased dramatically.

i'd put a limit on ISA holdings before paying tax, unless these ISAs have significant UK investments.

The £6bn is over the next 5 years, before the next GE... we'll have to wait and see what the fallout is.

i would have preferred it if Labour had published their workings on this tax increase first.

Its no good, if you re correct, that it will cost more than it raises plus impacts children.

LetItGo99 · 14/12/2024 14:59

MrsElijahMikaelson1 · 13/12/2024 22:00

That’s rude; just because you and yours are fine doesn’t mean others will be. People pick to send their children privately for many reasons-not just because they are posh and loaded. It’s might be that all their local schools are shit. Or they need better provision for SEND, a smaller class size for ASD or just a better fit. Some it is simply because they work long hours and need the elongated wrap around care. Many scrape and save. FYI-no skin in the game as all my children are in a good state school, which we are lucky enough to be catchment for. However, they are full.

Even I can see that an influx of children, which has had no warning or planning with the state schools as to where the children will all go, is not going to work. All the schools near me are full to capacity; and a bit more on top. Any child needing a place now would have to travel quite a distance to the next school. There is going to be nothing calm about it. I suspect you also won’t be quite so calm yourself when your child is in a class of 45 struggling to learn and is sharing a laptop between four . Plus census day has already happened, so state schools won’t even get the funding for all these extra children! It was a shit plan and will cost more than it will raise in taxes.

You've hit the nail on the head. Census day has already happened. The timing of this tax is such that extra pupils that flow in to the state system from January all the way to the next census day in autumn 2025 (and beyond, as it takes time for money to trickle through), will be completely unfunded for most councils. But the schools will need to absorb them anyway and make it work.

Plus, VAT is such that any take goes into one big government pot and it is NOT ring fenced, as is often mistakenly noted. There will be no accountability with this particular tax as to spend and distribution, as there cannot be - such a mechanism does not exist, so we as taxpayers will simply never see measurable impact. We will never know how much was actually made, or how much made its way into the education system and if it actually funded teachers/breakfast clubs/etc etc.

There will be a lot more teachers leaving as a result of this (far, far more than the mythical 6000 odd teachers who haven't even been trained and hired yet as part of this "plan"). Who wants to teach under these increasingly shit conditions. That in turn will leave larger classes untaught in squashed classrooms around the country.

It is just bonkers that the government thinks this is a good idea, as just puts more pressure on an already shaky system. It will be even worse if many independent schools close at short notice (which is the end goal for Labour) as then there really is no alternative for families other than state, which will have neither the funds, teachers or space to educate all to a high standard. This disproportionately affects current senior school children. Primary schools will likely be fine long term with spaces, but it's really really unfair on older children who are already struggling with lack of teachers and poorer GCSE and A level outcomes in the short term.

EweCee · 14/12/2024 15:01

MiseryIn · 14/12/2024 14:10

Short term issue. Worth it for wider equality in the longer term.

Likelihood is that there ARE spaces, just not in the immediate area or the desirable schools.

It won't bring wider equality at all - in fact, it will doe the opposite and make the elite more elite, widen the inequality with PS for the even more wealthy who will continue to get wealthier and go into politics....

And for those saying that school places ARE available, just further away, why hasn't our Local Authority offered us ANY school, even if further away? 3 months so far with no place across 2 LA's and only has even called us - once- to say no places, sorry, continue waiting...

louddumpernoise · 14/12/2024 15:17

EweCee · 14/12/2024 15:01

It won't bring wider equality at all - in fact, it will doe the opposite and make the elite more elite, widen the inequality with PS for the even more wealthy who will continue to get wealthier and go into politics....

And for those saying that school places ARE available, just further away, why hasn't our Local Authority offered us ANY school, even if further away? 3 months so far with no place across 2 LA's and only has even called us - once- to say no places, sorry, continue waiting...

Blame the Tories for not funding schools correctly, nor dealing with retention and teacher training, we couldn't get a place for my DD and had to go OOA several years ago.
Its a not a new issue.

strawberrybubblegum · 14/12/2024 15:18

MrsSchrute · 14/12/2024 14:41

Would I be happy to pay extra for my house, or not pay and have a house for free?
Yep, reckon I'd be ok with that!

In this thought experiment, you can already have social housing for free if you want it Grin

Some crazy people are still buying their own houses, which they pay for 100%. Even though they could have social housing completely free. There's no accounting for folk.

They're fine with paying the same tax as everyone else, even though they aren't taking up housing.

Do you see how stupid it is to put an extra tax on their mortgage, which only they have to pay in order to finance improvements to the social housing they've chosen not to use (which means more is avaliable for everyone else). You want them to pay more than everyone else because they won't benefit from it like everyone else Confused

There will be no extra money for social housing once you house the new tenants, and the remaining mortgage-owners will be so pissed off that they find other ways to reduce their tax, or fuck off and live elsewhere. Then how will the government pay for your social housing? And the NHS. And all the other things the mortgage owners pay more than their share of.

LetItGo99 · 14/12/2024 15:19

strawberrybubblegum · 14/12/2024 14:35

That's a good thought experiment: how would you feel @MrsSchrute if the government very suddenly (6 months notice) introduced an additional 20% tax on all mortgage payments, in order to fund improved state social housing?

Mortgage is a similar proportion of people's income as fees (so 20% of it is significant but usually not impossible... by giving something else up). It's similarly targetted at a luxury which only privileged people have. It's similarly hypothecated to fund something which most people are in favour of: but which costs the state a lot and so is underfunded and has limited availability. This new Mortgage tax is really very similar to the new Education tax.

How much is your new tax? Could you find an extra 20% on top of your mortgage? What would you have to give up? How do you feel about it?

But now -to make it more similar to Labour's education tax - imagine that whilst you 100% pay your mortgage payments, the government 100% pays for social housing for anyone who doesn't have a house. So as people decide to give up their house and mortgage - either they can't afford the extra 20% or it no longer seems worthwhile - the government has to start paying for their housing. Inevitably, existing social housing is under strain. The government must either squeeze more peoole into the existing flats or use the money they had earmarked for improvements to build more housing. So despite the 20% tax, social housing no better.

Oh and some people who had adapted their own house for disability (at their own cost) but couldn't afford the extra 20% are now housed in unsuitable housing with stairs. After it has been utterly shit for them for about 2 years and their mental health is shot, the government will pay for an incredibly expensive jetpack for them. The person would have preferred to stay in their own, adapted home all along.

You're paying 20% of your mortgage extra tax, but no one in social housing is better off. Some people are much worse off. It's a complete shit-show.

Still happy with it?

I should have read the whole thread. This says it better than I could and is a very good analogy.

MrsSchrute · 14/12/2024 15:31

strawberrybubblegum · 14/12/2024 15:18

In this thought experiment, you can already have social housing for free if you want it Grin

Some crazy people are still buying their own houses, which they pay for 100%. Even though they could have social housing completely free. There's no accounting for folk.

They're fine with paying the same tax as everyone else, even though they aren't taking up housing.

Do you see how stupid it is to put an extra tax on their mortgage, which only they have to pay in order to finance improvements to the social housing they've chosen not to use (which means more is avaliable for everyone else). You want them to pay more than everyone else because they won't benefit from it like everyone else Confused

There will be no extra money for social housing once you house the new tenants, and the remaining mortgage-owners will be so pissed off that they find other ways to reduce their tax, or fuck off and live elsewhere. Then how will the government pay for your social housing? And the NHS. And all the other things the mortgage owners pay more than their share of.

But that's not how our taxation system works is it? I don't get to pay less because I'm healthy and have never had a fire. People without children don't pay less tax because they don't use schools.
We all pay into one pot for the national good. You might decide you're not going to pay for some of what out taxes fund, but that doesn't mean you get to pay less tax.
Now if you want to start a thread about reforming our entire tax system, that would be an interesting discussion!

twistyizzy · 14/12/2024 15:33

louddumpernoise · 14/12/2024 14:41

Labour began the process, true, the Tories continued it.

re your earlier post, Sunak froze tax thresholds NOT labour, where would you get the money to unfreeze them earlier than Reeves has said?

Where and who would you tax to get the approx £6 billion VAT on fees will raise for the state sector?

Its all very well calling for this or that tax not to implemented but what taxes would you raise or what services would you cut? or would you just borrow?

VAT on fees won't raise 6 billion. Whete did you get that figure from?
The optimistic figure was 1.5 billion but that was overly optimistic and with all the new exemptions + VAT reclaiming etc it will be lucky to bring in 0.5 billion. That's before the cost of the 4 x legal challenges too.

Parsley1234 · 14/12/2024 15:34

Wider equality are you insane 😂😂😂😂

ICouldBeVioletSky · 14/12/2024 15:35

louddumpernoise · 14/12/2024 15:17

Blame the Tories for not funding schools correctly, nor dealing with retention and teacher training, we couldn't get a place for my DD and had to go OOA several years ago.
Its a not a new issue.

But the Tories creating a sh1tshow doesn’t justify Labour making things worse:

  • Disrupting the education of those kids pulled out of independent schools, especially for SEN kids and those midway through GCSE and A levels (but who cares about the poshos, right)
  • raising enough VAT to make absolutely no meaningful improvements to state schools whatsoever (on Labour’s own analysis)
  • in many state schools making things worse with increased class sizes and/or an influx of SEN children meaning SEN resources spread even more thinly.

In case you haven’t realised, Labour couldn’t give two hoots about the kids in state schools, their sole/ultimate aim is to shut down private schools and ensure everyone enjoys the same woeful standard of education.

👏

👏

👏

strawberrybubblegum · 14/12/2024 15:38

Oh, and @MrsSchrute - you may not realise it if you haven't read these threads, but about 20% of those crazy mortgage-owners bought a house because they're disabled and not willing to wait through several years of hell in the hope of being eventually given a jetpack to get up the stairs. Even though it's unfair and expensive, they'd rather buy a house and adapt it.

Unfortunately, these are the ones most likely to be unable to afford the 20% Mortgage tax.

Others (like me) just really value having a garden where they can grow things. The government can't afford to give everyone a garden, so if you really want one you might choose to forego your free social housing.

Either way, it's really immoral of the government to stoke up hatred and division against mortgage-owners and gaslight the rest of the population that they should pay more, simply because they're not taking up a benefit they are entitled to.

strawberrybubblegum · 14/12/2024 15:44

MrsSchrute · 14/12/2024 15:31

But that's not how our taxation system works is it? I don't get to pay less because I'm healthy and have never had a fire. People without children don't pay less tax because they don't use schools.
We all pay into one pot for the national good. You might decide you're not going to pay for some of what out taxes fund, but that doesn't mean you get to pay less tax.
Now if you want to start a thread about reforming our entire tax system, that would be an interesting discussion!

No, but you don't pay more towards the NHS because you're healthy.

You don't pay more towards the fire service because you're lucky enough to have never had a fire.

Why on earth do you expect me to pay more towards your children's school than you do?!

I already pay the same amount.

MrsSchrute · 14/12/2024 15:54

strawberrybubblegum · 14/12/2024 15:44

No, but you don't pay more towards the NHS because you're healthy.

You don't pay more towards the fire service because you're lucky enough to have never had a fire.

Why on earth do you expect me to pay more towards your children's school than you do?!

I already pay the same amount.

But you don't HAVE to! That's the point, it always has been. If you cannot afford the extra cost, then don't pay it. Like 94% of the population.

strawberrybubblegum · 14/12/2024 16:02

MrsSchrute · 14/12/2024 15:54

But you don't HAVE to! That's the point, it always has been. If you cannot afford the extra cost, then don't pay it. Like 94% of the population.

I can afford to pay for my child's education myself, and I choose to do that. All fine.

I strongly object to paying an extra supplement towards your child's education - which you don't have pay, even if you have as much money as me - simply because Labour hate that I make that choice.

LetItGo99 · 14/12/2024 16:04

MrsSchrute · 14/12/2024 14:41

Would I be happy to pay extra for my house, or not pay and have a house for free?
Yep, reckon I'd be ok with that!

Continuing with the analogy.

We're so glad you've opted for the free social housing, and have given up your luxury three bed semi due to affordability! We are needing to house more this year, so your family will get this one bed for yourselves, shared toilet down the hall. Apologies, we've needed to put two families together due to space constraints but we're sure you'll all adjust. We guarantee housing for everyone, so we've done our part. This one doesn't have a caretaker as we haven't managed to recruit one, so do what you can with the fiddly toilet. There will be money coming soon from taxes so a caretaker will be around to check on things shortly. We hope.

You don't like it? Too small, and doesn't suit your family? Well look at you miss ladeedah, wanting the Ritz. You miss your luxury house 3 bed? Well you shouldn't have bought a house in the first place if you couldn't afford a 20% increase in your mortgage. That was really irresponsible of you.

(MrsSchrute - not aimed at you with malevolence but have had a glass already and am having fun with strawberry bubble gum analogy).

strawberrybubblegum · 14/12/2024 16:04

Can you imagine having to pay a fine for being healthy?

To make up for the "unfairness" that other people are ill, and need to use the NHS hospital you are contributing fully towards.

It's perverse.

MrsSchrute · 14/12/2024 16:06

strawberrybubblegum · 14/12/2024 16:02

I can afford to pay for my child's education myself, and I choose to do that. All fine.

I strongly object to paying an extra supplement towards your child's education - which you don't have pay, even if you have as much money as me - simply because Labour hate that I make that choice.

But you acknowledge that it is a choice? So you don't have too?

I get that you don't want to pay more for a product, no one would, but when it is a non essential product, as private education is, the choice is yours as to whether or not you chose to use that product.

Anyway, I sense that we are not going to come to an agreement on this.

strawberrybubblegum · 14/12/2024 16:11

MrsSchrute · 14/12/2024 16:06

But you acknowledge that it is a choice? So you don't have too?

I get that you don't want to pay more for a product, no one would, but when it is a non essential product, as private education is, the choice is yours as to whether or not you chose to use that product.

Anyway, I sense that we are not going to come to an agreement on this.

Of course it's a choice!

Parents whose children's SEN aren't catered for adequately in state education may reasonably not see it as a choice, but that's not my situation.

I'm already paying for the product I'm buying. In full. 100%. Always have, and happy to.

What I object to is having to pay a vindictive £4k per year FINE from Labour for wrong-think. Money which Labour will piss against the wall, and make the UK worse for everyone, not better.

strawberrybubblegum · 14/12/2024 16:14

MrsSchrute · 14/12/2024 16:06

But you acknowledge that it is a choice? So you don't have too?

I get that you don't want to pay more for a product, no one would, but when it is a non essential product, as private education is, the choice is yours as to whether or not you chose to use that product.

Anyway, I sense that we are not going to come to an agreement on this.

Why exactly do you think that I should pay more towards your child's education than you do yourself, even when we have the same amount of money?

EasternStandard · 14/12/2024 18:05

'Surrey County Council has admitted it does not have enough state school places to accommodate children transferring from private schools'

What a joke Labour's policy is

Parsley1234 · 14/12/2024 18:29

@EasternStandard first of many councils to be shipping kids out in taxis at a cost to the tax payer that didn’t happen before !!!

suburburban · 14/12/2024 19:05

Perhaps Surrey council should invoice the treasurery to pay for all the extra expenses as they are responsible for the situation

Parsley1234 · 14/12/2024 21:30

Yes I think there will be a few more court cases coming after the four already in the mix these councils are going to have to find funding free m somewhere

HealthRobinsonCrusoe · 14/12/2024 21:45

LetItGo99 · 14/12/2024 14:45

Well you don't give a rats about their children - so why should they care about yours? Why should the care and concern (and their earned money) flow in only one direction: towards you and your children?

I don't support their children buying unfair advantages in life...

Parsley1234 · 14/12/2024 21:52

@HealthRobinsonCrusoe everything is unequal from where you live and access to a good state school if you buy a better house you get a better education experience? What’s the difference in fact parents who do that should subsidise state schools too and I would like my £8k refund for not using state provision