Labour’s plans for VAT on Private Schools

[Busydadof2]

The Labour Party has proposed introduction of VAT on private schools.

In the scheme of things the money they will bring in from this is tiny compared with total expenditure on state schools, while it will drive more burden on the state system as some parents leave private schools. I think this is a populist ploy to get traditional Labour voters to vote for what is in any other sense a centrist party.

Have you considered signing this petition to make sure the policy gets scrutinised and the weight of public sentiment against it is known?

Change.org petition: Stop Labour from adding 20% VAT to private school fees and forcing kids to change schools

www.change.org/p/stop-labour-from-adding-20-vat-to-private-school-fees-and-forcing-kids-to-change-schools

Various perspectives from the signatories of this vote come to mind and resonate with our own situation, including this: “I work in a state school with over 30 in a class and oversubscribed. My 2 kids went or go to private schools and we have sacrificed loads to do this. We are NOT wealthy, many of the kids at the school I work at live in bigger houses and have much more disposable income than we do. We chose to send our kids to private school rather than live in a bigger house instead of our semi detached on a main road. We holiday in the UK every year and I work full time. I buy my clothes on the high street or in charity shops. Many parents at the school my kids attend are in exactly the same situation. I agree there are some very wealthy parents there too and the addition of VAT will not even make an impact on them, they will pay it without batting an eyelid. All this will do is push the kids like ours back into an already oversubscribed state system, increase class sizes even more and create a bigger divide as private education will become truly elitist.”

@Mia85

That does limit their freedom BUT it's quite clear from those plans that they're not looking at crude state/private split but looking at much more specific indicators.

I'm perplexed about how you reached this conclusion. Their aims are crude and specific. In addition to their aims regarding SES, they specifically aim to increase admission from: "UK state-sector schools and colleges so that they comprise 69.1% of the total intake by 2024/25." (APP p20).

Their written plan and exam data indicate that this is not an anomally. They will manage it by orientating their examinations to suit a more comprehensive intake.

1.6 billion will fund the NHS for 48 hours.

indeed.

Someones said about their secondary that theyve had to cancel most of the school trips as people are keeping funds back in case the VAT comes in within their children's time scales. Clemmie and Charlie don't get to go skiing or go to Malawi or get to see a volcano in Sicily. But neither do Olivia and Ollie, whose parents are already scrimping to pay their 50% fees. And Jayden and Aaliyah who are on 100% bursary have now lost their only chance to see these places or even leave the UK, and experience what social mobility might have to offer them.

Keeping them dumbed down and voting Labour at all costs eh?!

Not that simple, many give up holidays, cars etc to pay for school. Many have special needs which havent be catered for in state schools. Its not quite the same as what you get for free, our local state has stabbings weekly with kids regularly carted off in ambulances, i'd rather eat dust than send my kid there. My house is falling apart bt my spare cash can wait. Also what is the point of the added VAT? Politics of envy i expect. State schools will be inundated with kids leaving private schools, they wont even receive any extra funding for this until 2026 due to how registrations work so more cuts & bigger class sizes as schools are already full. The poorer kids will be pushed from their local gd schools by those who live nearer or have more ability to get into the grammars. Where are the 6500 promised extra teachers coming from, there isnt enough teachers already & it equates to 0.25 of a teacher per school in reality & the magic money tree i expect wdnt stretch to it anyway (as well as the nurses etc which have been magically promised).

bt it isnt going to fund the promised teachers, all 0.25 of them per school! its going to fund the places for kids who can no longer afford private, it will be swallowed up, try to see beyond it just taking money from the rich & giving it to the poor. bursaries will be cut, help for local state schools from the private ones will be cut. its not just wealthy who go private, many are on 100% bursaries as they deserve them because of being clever etc, do you think they shdnt be given the chance to attend private for this reason? The very rich will be unaffected as they can afford it bt they are not everyone in private schools. states will be flooded with pupils, these pupils often taking the place of a kid who deserves it bt the ex private school kid lives nearer that school so the poor kid will have to go to an inferior school. Think about it, read my previous posts on here and be careful what you wish for.

and the kids in the next town who wd normally go to that school wont be able to get a place. stuff them. labour dont care. you do whats best for you. labour's emily thornberry has said just this, her kids go to private school and she doesnt care what happens to anyone elses kids!

who is this them that you speak of?

is it the very wealthy this wont affect?

or the 50% bursary kids who are making the sacrifices to send their children private.

or the 100% bursary kids who will diminsh in numbers due to this?

keep everyone dumbed down and voting labour eh?

does this also apply to those who have 100% bursaries whos parents earn minimum wage or those on scholarships of 50% who may be earning more or not enough, or even those with educational needs who would not proper in a state school of 30+ loud kids?

It’s perfectly possible to be in favour of funded state schools and against taxes targeted to independent school parents. The linking of the education tax to better funded state schools is just a political trick. It’s a lie that any portion of VAT or any other tax is hypothecated for this thing or that. Labour just as easily put 1p on income tax or create a new tax. Personally I think people should pay for at least part of their children’s education but that my personal bias. Just remember that when people tell you that you’re uncaring about state school students. Finally, isn’t it curious how posters supporting the education tax say simultaneously that state schools are fine and independent school are a luxury and there is plenty of space for the the new kids but also they need a ton more money from independent school parents, thank you very much?

Are you saying only uneducated people vote Labour?

Yes, I have a DD with SEN. School are struggling to meet her needs to the point that she is not really getting an education. But I can't afford to send her to a private school no matter how many cutbacks I make. The amount we spend on holidays (£2.5k) and house renovations (next to 0), is not going to magic up the thousands needed for private school fees. As is the case for the vast majority of kids with SEN in this country who are in state schools.

If you have a child with SEN and can privately fund their education, you are wealthy or have wealthy relatives.

So how is adding more DC with SEN to the state system going to help you and your child? How is clogging up the system to issue EHCPs to avoid VAT on fees going to help children in the state system with SEN? Yes, it is likely the case that most people with children in independent schools are well off. There are also plenty of wealthy people currently using the state system. We have a system that is reliable for doing progressive taxation. It's called income tax. In that system, if you earn more, you pay more. Adding a tax to education doesn't do that.

This will affect you in particular. There are plenty of private schools tailored towards SEN needs. Those who are scrimping to pay these fees thru whatever means may be tipped over the edge and need to pull out and go to state school. Therefore the SEN provision for Yr child will need to be stretched further to cater for additional SEN kids.

Many SEN schools are part (even fully) council funded so the increased fees will come from the council education budget and there will be less funding for your kid.

See, it affects everyone with school age kids not just those hit with the increase.

I'm sympathetic and not criticising your choices at all, but there are people paying for private school who don't have a holiday budget. It's simply not true that if you privately fund education you are "wealthy".

But the more important point: if it wasn't for all the people able / willing by whatever luck/hard work/family assistance applies to them, they'd all be in the state system demanding for their needs to be met. And your DD could only expect even less attention.

As somebody mentioned above, Labour are playing a cruel politicians' trick. Your concern is about lack of resources and supply in the state sector. Government can dramatically increase resources and supply in the state sector in any number of ways. The parents' campaign Education Not Taxation strongly supports improving state schools.

But not by harming independent schools, in ways that can only make life more difficult for people like you.

@MisterChips why so hard to understand that people's perception of wealth differs? It is relative to your own position.

"I'm sympathetic and not criticising your choices at all, but there are people paying for private school who don't have a holiday budget. It's simply not true that if you privately fund education you are "wealthy"."

This reads more like judgemental than sympathetic. You use the word "choices" when the person has clearly said that they could never afford private education, whatever adjustments they made. You are hinting that they are spending £2.5k on holidays when other families go without to privately educate their DC . There is a big difference between £2.5k and annual school fees. You sound like Kirstie Allsopp.

The poster said they spend £2.5k on holidays, which I'm not criticising. Why do you take issue with me saying that's a "choice"? I like people having choices, remember?

Other people do choose private school and don't have a holiday budget at all. Because they're not wealthy Why do you you take issue with me pointing that out? Again, I like people having choices. If we were talking about the top 1pc, it would be a different conversation, but we're not. It's about the top third.

But the more important point remains: this policy won't help @lavenderlou get better education for her child, because independent schools do a disproportionate amount of heavy lifting on SEN provision. Shrink the independent sector and you're just forcing even more children to share the limited resources she writes about.

If you want better provision for SEN in state schools, argue for that. If you're serious about wanting more money for it, you want it to come from some other place than harming independent education first.

Stop just playing with words. @lavenderlou cannot afford private education whichever way you look at it. Giving examples of people who have the choice is not helpful. Wealth is perception and for many the fact that people can even choose private education makes them wealthy, even if they forego holidays. Just own your privilege.

Many people can afford private education and don't pay for it but send their kids to state schools. Why shouldn't they pay extra for what their kids actually use?

I didn't say she could. What I do say is that anyone in the top 3 deciles could afford independent school, based on the fact that plenty of people in the top 3 deciles do.

More importantly (let's try this again) this tax makes her challenges worse, not better.

Anyone serious about wanting to improve state schools, for SEN provision or more generally, would start by agreeing that independent schools are good for public finances, and would find the money in a different way.

Let's just shift the focus to what you want to say (again and again and again).
No. The point is that she can't afford it and your stupid and patronising comments are insulting. Once again, own your privilege.

State school is the default position in this country. If they wanted to pay for education they would educate in the private sector. Their wealth has nothing to do with it, or you for that matter.

Eh? So...we shouldn't talk about the effect this tax will have, not only on independent school families, but on all families. You reckon @lavenderlou isn't interested in whether her kid gets better education or not?

She's only interested in my privilege?

And you're calling me patronising.

Err, the whole discussion is about whether people sending kids private are more or less wealthy and thus whether they should pay more to the public coffers. That begs the question as to why people who can afford to contribute more to the public coffers but choose to send their kids to the state school are not being asked to pay more? I’m happy to remove people’s choice of schooling for their children as a criterion for having to pay more tax. In fact, that’s what I’m asking for. Glad we agree.

Yes, I have a DD with SEN. School are struggling to meet her needs to the point that she is not really getting an education. But I can't afford to send her to a private school no matter how many cutbacks I make. The amount we spend on holidays (£2.5k) and house renovations (next to 0), is not going to magic up the thousands needed for private school fees. As is the case for the vast majority of kids with SEN in this country who are in state schools.

If you have a child with SEN and can privately fund their education, you are wealthy or have wealthy relatives.

Worth reminding you of what she actually said. Of course, she is 100% correct in what she says. Can you see anywhere that she asking for/interested in your opportunistic disclosure of why you think YOU not having to pay VAT helps her awful situation? Read the room.

You should have stopped at the sympathy part and not qualify it with a but.

Yes, I am calling you patronising.

Sure, well unlike you I am actually interested in making schools better, and I'm not so PATRONISING as to assume others can't see it.