How's the Private School VAT increase impacting you?

[mumsthewordi]

To private fee paying ...are kids/s still in private ? Are you comfortably still able to afford and happy paying it ?

To state, how do you feel? Have you been impacted by more kids in class or would you expect that to play out this year? Or perhaps you weren't supportive ?
Do you think state schools will improve ?

Full disclosure
A struggling fee paying parent of one kid only other is at state and my oh is an amazing secondary school teacher - we are a divided household indeed at time, but we've made choices best for us.

This makes zero sense. How does a historically strong but very small private sector hold the state sector back?

I will say again,this isn't a hypothecated tax and unions are voting on strike action due to the pay offer?
VAT won't pay for increase in salary etc.
How much do you think it will raise?

Please could you explain how indy schools have enabled us to get away with having a "sub par" state system? I really am interested
This policy will only get rid of smaller, less well funded schools. The elite public schools will be fine so all that will happen is that the Indy sector becomes MORE elitist

No. I will take up my child's EHCR right, and educate her as I see fit.

I don't really object to subbing the government. But I do object to being taxed further on the subsidy I'm giving them.

Can you really not see how wrong that is?

I don't think it is wrong.

Of course you should educate your child as you see fit, the state school place is there if you chose to use it, but as ever it is totally up to you.

I don’t know what you think any of this has to do with PS? They get absolutely no funding from the state and save the state educating 550k children per year (around £ 4 billion). Shrinking the sector can’t possibly aid the state. The policy is malicious and aimed at hurting children (my children) , it has certainly changed my political leanings quite considerably. In 4 years, Labour will be gone and so will the education tax but the unacceptable spite of the policy and surrounding rhetoric will not be forgotten so quickly.

The moment I'll provide an explanation that doesn't feed into your agenda, you'll jump to another subject. So there's no point.

‘In 4 years, Labour will be gone and so will the education tax but the unacceptable spite of the policy and surrounding rhetoric will not be forgotten so quickly’

Yes. And sadly - their negative impact on thousands of children, will be ongoing. Potentially irreversible. The Labour Party of today are despicable. They are incompetent. They are an embarrassment. That could be their collective noun.

In other words ‘ I don’t know, but I can’t afford it so I don’t think anyone else should have the option’.

Whatever floats your boat.

Explain it to me then - I am genuinely interested in why you think the big roadblock for state education is a handful of private schools.

No I am genuinely interested why you think a sector that educates 7% of kids can hide the sub-par education of the other 93% of kids. I mean that's a pretty impressive feat and maybe we should all celebrate the Indy sector a lot more for being able to achieve that!

And times this by 2 or 3 if have more than one DC. The family I know with 2 DC both at independent schools have said they won't be having holidays until their kids finish school. Maybe said tongue in cheek but probably some truth in cutting back on holidays.

No holidays! Tongue in cheek! On no!

Honestly. It’s going to be hard for most people to feel any sympathy. Cut your cloth.

Better to float your boat than let it sink and then go around trying to sink everyone else’s .
That was my attempt at a metaphor 😊

It might be unlikely but I think it is misleading to say they pay £13k income tax because of school fees. They pay income tax based on their income just like everyone else. Maybe one parent is working and they decide on a private school so the 2nd parent gets a job on £22k a year. Or grandparents contribute, or parent is in armed forces and places are subsidised, or child has SEN that means the place is paid for by LA. All perfectly possible.

Financial planning is not possible when our political system creates sudden cliff edges. This a problem with private education, pensions, and other investments.

If we want people to make long term investments, we can’t upend them. Wild tax swings encourage short term thinking.

We actually want investment of all kinds. Even the in our children. Not everyone thinks private school is a good investment, or can afford it. Same as pension savings or starting a business. In a free, dynamic economy, it’s best to let people make their own judgements and choices, and encourage all investments possible.

Interesting that you consider 'state benefit' to be emotive and inaccurate, but you haven't been up in arms about 'tax break' or 'tax loophole'.

You're not as neutral as you think you are.

Likewise, the threads aren't becoming nastier. In fact, some of the anti-private vitriol and abuse from the earlier threads (eg being called cunts and arseholes) has eased off slightly.

Of course, it was never very bad in the other direction: perhaps that's all you noticed.

If we went to state I’d put most of my salary over £100k into my pension and my wife would go part time. Quick back of fag packet work out, would be a loss in income tax of £36 per anum plus £14k cost to the state to educate two children. So it would cost the state £50k per year, this is obviously just my scenario but I’d imagine it’s not that unusual.

Our children are still being mocked with imagined 'posho' names of course.

But hey ho. That isn't nasty is it?

Haven't you seen the references to 'Jayden' and 'Kayden' too? I'm surprised.

Only in response to the bigoted name calling of indy school kids

Because it was very convenient to the government that the majority of places at Unis providing high quality specialists were filled by those privately educated to a high standard at no cost to the taxpayer. Happy Unis, happy government (also comprised of PS alumni), happy PS parents.
There was/is very little incentive to change anything in the state sector as long as there's enough well-educated students to fill all the places.

There's an Elitist Britain 2019 report, and also Access to advantage report showing disproportionate % of PE students in high ranking Universities.

There's also an older article that allows to roughly estimate the numbers.

"according to a recent report by the government’s Social Mobility Commission, in 2016 over half of the UK's journalists, doctors, and barristers were educated at private schools.
Out of those studying medicine, 51% came from a private education in 1987, and this has jumped to 61% in 2016.

Journalists just overstepped the half way point, with 49% coming from a private education in 1987, rising to 51% in 2016. Those in judiciary positions remained mostly from a private education, at 74% down from 76% in 1987, and barristers also still mostly come from private schools at 71% down from 73%.
"
www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/over-half-of-uk-doctors-and-journalists-went-to-private-schools-a3585376.html

This is starting to resemble a playground.

Yet you were making the same point ie name calling