Nope to labour

[Mrsdeehoang]

I was considering voting for Labour, but their manifesto proposal to change the VAT on private education has made me reconsider. I'm not financially well-off, just about managing, and I took on two jobs to afford the fees for my son’s private grammar school. Despite our efforts, he couldn’t get a place in any of the five local state schools due to oversubscription, and our appeal was unsuccessful. We were instead assigned a school outside our area with a poor Ofsted report. Faced with this choice, I opted to work harder to provide him with a better education privately. The proposed VAT changes would make it even harder for families like mine to manage.

For me, Labour doesn’t seem to understand that not everyone who sends their children to private school is wealthy. I don’t like the Tories either, but I would rather vote for them than for Labour.

Exactly this. It seems a lot of the country agree with the policy - that's democracy I guess. But it could have been managed so much better. Sticking it straight to 20%, possibly as early as next academic year is crazy bad planning. There are lower rates of VAT. The people saying 'well, Labour have been talking about this, so you should have planned'. Is that how the country is run? People having to make decisions based on what a party not in power says it might do before they've even brought out a manifesto? Their not taxing the schools, whatever they try to say, they're taxing the parents.

@MyNameIsFine why can't private schools absorb the cost rather then passing it off to parents? Surely the issue is how they cope with the loss of their charitable status and manage the reduced funding - not pass it on to families? They have a choice - you pay them enough!

Exactly
We could have done this via MIL saying she'd pay for eldest.
If I'd have taken her up on her offer when he was 4, it doesn't even begin to take into account she'd be in her 80s and would she even be able to pay then?
Also what happens to if we had any more (we did) do you pay double or just ignore them?!
So many factors. Whether that be the Govt subsidising you or family
If you can't comfortably yourself, then you can't afford.

Not true. We’ll be on a bursary and are not well off — we come out as below median household income after rent and housing costs. But we don’t spend money on things that lots of people do - holidays, cars, etc. Now, you might say that people pay VAT on those, and that’s true. But there’s a reason most developed countries don’t charge VAT on education, even private education. It’s because that’s inherently a regressive policy. I’d thought better of Labour: there’s plenty of unearned wealth and corporate profits in the U.K. ripe to be taxed, from second homes to energy company profits, but they’re going for a spite-based headline policy that almost certainly won’t raise much revenue and does nothing to affect the most exclusive schools and the really wealthy, but targets a small number of middle-income parents at the margin.

It’s the equivalent of the child benefit cap for Tory voters: it plays to the worst instincts of the voter base whilst merely tinkering around the edges, and punishes children for their parents’ income and situation, as well as destroying an important principle in public life.

It’s a shit and badly thought through policy, and no matter how many people go “GOOD anyone who pays privately is POSH and deserves it!” that doesn’t make it a good one, it just means voters like the idea of punishment for others whether or not the “right” people are actually getting punished.

@asterel so why don't schools absorb the cost? They don't HAVE to put fees up - surely they have a choice. State school have to to adjust to cuts in funding - why can't private schools? Why is it everyone else's fault - ask private schools to adjust fees accordingly to meet the rise?

The country would be so much better if there were no private schools, why should a child get a better standard of education just because their parents can afford to pay for it? Every child should have the same chances to experience & learn from high standard teaching staff. We have a new state school near us that only takes 90 pupils a year & recruits only the best qualified teachers, their exam results are through the roof, I even feel that is unfair for all the other 2000 kids in the area who have to go to schools that aren't the same standard.

and it's not about being 'posh' it's really about making a CHOICE to opt out of free state provided education and CHOOSE to pay private - it's like taking out a HUGE mortgage and then demanding the state bail you out when rates rise - I'm sorry but you did make this choice

Perhaps if Labour had been in power and had not been bleeding the education system dry like the Tories, you may not have felt you needed to go private in the first place OP. A good education for all is good for everyone.

Yes you are wealthy if you can afford this. Lots of ppl work 2 jobs to afford rent nvm private school

That's OK if they are going into reception maybe for the first time but you certainly can't count on this is going into other year groups. They are all packed.

We moved recently and our nearest school is a good one (secondary). No places for either of my daughters so they have a walk a long way each day out of catchment.

My son, on the other hand, got into a good local primary (though not our nearest) so has a good chance of being able to move into our closest secondary.

Moving to a nice area does not ensure you a place at a good school.

Private school is a luxury. Of course it should be taxed.

I had to pay for a tutor for ds to get him through his maths GCSE as he didn't have a maths teacher, they were told to watch videos & then do worksheets every lesson for nearly 2 years. I was shelling out £35 a week for tutoring, I'm disabled & on benefits, if making parents pay VAT on private school fees means that other parents in my position don't have to pay out because schools can't recruit teachers then I'm all for charging VAT.

They're not removing charitable status, that wasn't worth the money, it was only £300/child. Labour just put this in the same conversation to rile people up.
They're just adding VAT.
Most private schools (at least ones like ours which are small independents) are non-profit. Nobody makes money from it, so there are no costs to cut apart from teachers. So the teachers can lose their job and the class sizes increase. Some schools are looking at this as the way to stay afloat. I know for sure our school do not have the ability to absorb 20%, they couldn't even absorb 10%

Yes states schools need more funding, I'd happily up income tax if it was ring fenced to go to schools, but this policy isn't going to help state schools.

I'm so sorry that happened to you, but why are you replying to me? I'm saying I don't think it's good value for money any more (in my area), but am going to pay the VAT as I'm committed. But I think Labour are misleading you that this tax revenue is going to make that much difference to teacher recruitment in the grand scheme of things.

Another reason I'm staying put. We had an offer from a good state school and we turned it down. No point looking back.

It won't.

I work in secondary and yes, some of it is about being underpaid (I'm HLTA) but most of it is about behaviour and stress.

Having kids threaten you, swear at you and disrespect you all day every day is rough and no amount of money will solve that.

Private schools that are charities - like state schools are, and other educational charities like universities and colleges - don’t make a profit; any surplus must be reinvested in the core business. Most educational charities break even. For most schools and other educational charities, there are limited places to save costs, as the biggest expenditure by far is on 1. salaries and pensions and 2. buildings, estate, energy and upkeep.

For any organisation, business or charity alike, it’s unlikely to be able to save that amount of extra costs in nonessential areas. You’d need to make staff redundant, or significantly reduce buildings upkeep (eg sell buildings or land). Large wealthy schools are more likely to have more staff and extra land or buildings; but they’re also likely to have parents who can easily absorb the increase in fees. Smaller schools operating on the margin and with no surplus and no significant extra assets won’t be able easily to reduce buildings costs; and if they make staff redundant, who does the teaching? Where are the cost savings to be absorbed? The entire point is that the schools that will be affected by this aren’t the top exclusive public schools or the competitive London day independents. They’re the small preps and private schools around the country who likely aren’t that selective, don’t attract bankers and aristocrats, don’t charge huge fees, and don’t have masses of staff or lots of extra land or other capital assets to sell off.

Labour doesn’t seem to understand that not everyone who sends their children to private school is wealthy.

🙄🙄🙄

Most independent schools are not run for profit. That means that any money raised from fees is spent on teachers' salaries, heating costs etc. They look at their expenses each year and base the fees on that. So what Labour are saying is that schools should cut jobs and pensions of their own teachers to pay for teachers in the state sector. Or else they pass the whole 20% on to the parents.

Many private schools are charities and therefore not in the business of making a profit, the smaller ones (like my DS's school) may only have 3-6 months worth of surplus to cover operating expenses. The major expense for private schools is teachers salaries and the TPS (teachers pension scheme). So yes, they could stop paying the expensive pension contributions - they could have larger class sizes and less staff but then there would be no point. Kinda of a race to the bottom.

If you can't afford it, you can't have it and will have to go and ask the school bank, commonly known as the state system, for help.

My local outstanding Ofsted school had a pupil stabbing in the corridor this week, I can see why people would rather work two jobs, sometimes three jobs.

Its a rock and a hard place.

I bet your parents wouldn't get Sky when you were a child OP?

25% of children at private school are in households where family household gross income is below £65k per year (roughly 2 parents earning an average salary).

Half of private schools aren’t charities. VAT has nothing to do with charitable status.