To think a lot of people who agree with VAT on school fees…

[geeenuoe]

Actually don’t truly understand that to most sending their kids to these schools, it is a massive, massive struggle already.

There seems to be a mentality that if you can afford 20k a year then you’re already comfortable so sod it, you should find more cash now for vat … but do people in general not understand that some families re mortgage their homes to pay these fees? Yes there’s mega wealthy people but there’s many, many more who are not.

On the one hand we hear a good education is a luxury so VAT must be applied, then on the other we are told a good education is a right for all. So… why are we taking away that good education from those who already have it? Why is the focus not on sorting out the state sector properly? We all know the vat won’t fix the state sector. It may help in a tiny way in ad hoc circumstances but there’s so so so much more that needs to be done to state schools to make them ever match what the private sector offers.

I simply don’t get this mentality that those making sacrifices must make more when it comes to bloody education. I say this as someone who can’t afford the fees but if I could I absolutely would… and I also acknowledge that I am unwilling to go to some lengths that others will to pay it. I respect the choice of others to make such sacrifices and have no desire to make it harder and more inaccessible for the masses to access it. Similarly, I know plenty of people driving fancy cars and spending loads on holidays… they’ve chosen that over school fees. And those who have spend loads getting into a postcode of a decent state school… should they be paying enhanced tax on their house purchase?

Why do most people think those who pay schools fees are doing so with great ease? Is it basically because they don’t personally know people paying this so accept the media narrative that it’s the mega rich only?

You could opt to help make the state sector better.
I was chair of gov for a long time.
Motivated parents make a difference. It might also effect how you vote - I.e. voting for parties that would increase funding etc.

I dont think people feel "entitled" to a private education. They just want to not be penalised for paying for education rather than taking up their state school place. Private schools are not subsidised by the state, the scheme will cost tax payers money overall and education is not a luxury so the imposition of VAT feels like ideological socialist targeting of a section of children. Targeting that no other country does.

I couldn't give two hoots to be honest. My children did very well in the local authority schools and they were not the cleverest in the schools either.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of VAT on private schools, it looks like it might not be as straightforward as they wanted. Just like the non-Doms, another Labour money-raising policy that may backfire. Penalise people with money and they walk, whether that is right or wrong, and band goes your tax revenue, plus a whole load of unintended consequences 🤷‍♀️

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/education/2024/oct/05/doubts-grow-over-labours-vat-plan-for-private-schools

why is it the responsibility of one set of parents to support the behaviour of another set of parents’ children?

It's called "Society" and its what makes the human race so astonishingly successful.

For another perspective, how would people react to 20% VAT ontop of private cancer treatment? Would we all be equally quick to just say “suck it up”?? I doubt it. We all have people in our lives who have needed healthcare (and quickly)…… who can blame someone with a cancer diagnosis of trying to get extra time even if they have to use all their savings. My point with this ridiculous school VAT policy from the Labour Party - where does it stop

You pay £300 a month to tutor a 7yo?!

Boo bloody hoo. This is absolutely ridiculous. Only two holidays a year? Get real.

Private school does NOT necessarily equal a better education. It equals a better 'network' if anything.

Loads of kids go to private school and spunk their education up a wall. Loads of kids go to state schools and go on to do extremely well for themselves.

Private school is a luxury choice. And therefore should be taxed, just like tumble dryers, ciggies, alcohol.

Poor darlings missing out on private school still have as much opportunity for a good education as the next person.

We aren't going to see a massive exodus to state schools. We also aren't going to see the small businesses that nor ally benefit from the yummy mummies suddenly hitting the wall either.

The very well off will pay their taxes (for a change) and those who really can't afford to will revisit.

Maybe cut down to one holiday a year?

Are you expecting upset middle class ex private school parents to waltz in and turn around a failing state school? I thought from this thread that state school parents are highly offended at the suggestion that they don't care about their children as much as private school parents?

And you a guvnor, an' all? I suspect not, from your use of "effect"...

How is that selfish? How much do you pay over and above standard rates of income tax to fund the education of other people’s children?

If they decided, as many other countries do, to take money from state schools parents and give it to private school parents to compensate them for not using state resources would you be OK with that?

I don't want to be penalised for paying for my car instead of taking up my State-capped £2 single ticket bus place. And yet I pay road tax and fuel duty and VAT.

You want a luxury, you pay tax on it.

Every parent came together to pressurise the school to withdraw support for those with less resources in their community? Really? Do you realise how vile and vindictive that makes you sound? Is that really the way parents who pay to their children to private school behave? I can only hope your poor children come to the state system for some lessons on morals and ethics.

I understand it's a struggle. But it's really not life and death. If you can't afford, you can't have it. I know plenty of parents will say they have no choice but to pay fees but that's not actually true. A kid with the same concerns as theirs but without two high earning parents will go in to state schools.
The state sector needs funding, aspirational parents and the best teachers. This policy is a good idea if it achieves even a little bit of that. The handwringing is really offensive to the millions of kids doing absolutely fine in state schools just now.

Don't be ridiculous. Everybody knows that some private school parents are absolutely loaded, some are just middlingly well-off and some have cut corners to send their dc private. So what? If you can't afford it (with or without the VAT), send them to a state school like the rest of us.

Are you seriously comparing attending State school to life-threatening cancer? Wow...

most people who pay these fees don’t own yachts and fleets of cars. They have a couple of holidays a year and watch their spending.
other people don’t get a couple holidays a year and other people can’t send their kids to private school no matter how much they watch their spending

We know some people aren’t ’yacht rich’ but lots of people aren’t ’basic food rich’ so it’s hard for them to muster up sympathy for you
pay your luxury tax on your luxury product, if you can’t afford it then that makes you just like most of the country, and just like most of the country you don’t get special privileges

The jealousy on this thread is cringeworthy!

Nope, not if it’s the difference between the full 20% being passed on or not.

The thing that I don't think those on the 'against' VAT side of the argument don't get is that the vast majority of the population just don't care that much. They (we) don't really think about whether people paying for private school are hugely richer than them, or just a bit richer than them. They don't care whether you consider yourself to be upper or middle class or how privileged you are or how hard you sacrifice to send Esme to the local independent.

There will be huge swathes of the country who don't know anyone who went to private school. It means nothing to them. They probably don't feel much or any sympathy for children who might have been able to go to private school and are now priced out because those kids aren't (unlike those who have suffered from various other 'austerity measures' over the last decade) facing poverty as a result of them and aren't in any less a position than their own kids who could have never envisioned going to private school anyway.

No no. Anyone who can't magic up £20k a year (or whatever) doesn't care about their child's education I'm afraid. Never mind all the reading and homework and volunteering for class trips and reinforcing behaviour standards and donations and all the rest.

They. Just. Don't. Care. Properly.

Your comment is a damning indictment of the 93% of parents who use state schools. Are none of them able to hold schools to account?

Either way it’s a moot point as ex PS parents will simply move to the best state catchment areas and use private tutors.

That's a strange view to have. So you are saying that if someone's parenting of their children is not up to scratch and as a result they have a badly behaved child, it is our responsibility as part of "the human race" to step in and say "leave this to me. I will take over and sort this child's poor behaviour out myself"

I'm not sure how "astonishingly successful" I would be. Or how long I would remain an (alive) member of the human race.

Private education is a luxury. A luxury that many people can't afford. Every child is entitled to an education. No child is entitled to a private one. Hence why it is a luxury if you can afford it.

And people accuse those in favour of the policy as 'spiteful'.

It's heartwarming to see that's the first thing to go.

But at least Mumsnet users won't be able to use 'my cleaner's children use PS' argument.

About 1% of PS children are on a 100% bursary.

Yes they do, but none of those things are essential and none would be provided by the state if they didn't buy one.

If it was a legal requirement that every family had a tumble dryer, and the state provided a tumble dryer to every family from tax payer funds, but some families turned down the free tumble dryer and instead chose to buy their own tumble dryer, it would be a bit much to say that they also needed to pay tax to improve the quality of the tumble dryers the state was providing.