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?

Bollocks, my parents were teachers, couldn’t afford private school back then either

And it will be us contributing tax payers who end up paying for that Labour fuck up.

Mine were and did afford it. No other money, the income was enough 20 years ago. I do think it is the other costs that have risen more though, leaving less available. Houses in particular.

It's when those really wealthy people who can easily afford a sprinkler (but refuse to buy one and demand that other people buy them one) expect the sprinkler owners to buy their kids breakfast, that I think it all turns into complete madness.

This is same mantra form wealthy people as the “trickle down economics”
yeah, right, that worked didn’t it.
🤦‍♀️

What a naive comment.
The average family aren't sending their kids to a private school. 🫣

There's a lot of that on Mumsnet. Some people are living in bubbles and aren't really aware of the world outside them.

Nothing to do with trickle down economics.

Money in. Money out. It's not complicated.

It’s the unfairness of the system. Rich people have a luxury sprinkler system but ordinary families have a poor service and their houses burn because of underfunding.
Regular people will, unsurprisingly, have little sympathy for the rich people who complain about having to join their ranks in waiting for an overstretched fire service.

Well let's hope they remain so passive when those "irregular" people move much nearer to the fire station and the engine stops at their house first.

Yes, indeed.

Entitled comment alert.

It's very rare for teachers to be able to send their children private, unless they get a massive discount by working at same school and/or have other sources of income and/or well below average other outgoings.

Nowadays I agree, however back then it was really common, which is I think the point the first poster about this aspect was trying to make.

It wasn't 'really common' at all, where I grew up.

One if the immediate effects of VAT on school fees is that in the indie I work in, salaries are being frozen and the Teachers Pension Scheme no longer offered (will be a DC scheme instead, much less attractive to staff.) This area (Richmond) is already too expensive for young couples wanting kids do there teaching pool will be diminished even further (problems even now attracting staff)
So only teachers available are newly qualified for a couple of years while in their 20s or the older ones like me who bought their houses yonks ago and no have childcare costs and who are retiring soon.

We have quite a few parents who are teachers at DD's school. One family, both parents are teachers: they have a DS and a DD and each parent works at one child's school.

It's strange how people overestimate the cost of school fees compared to the cost of a parent not working - which is a very common family luxury (and costs the government far more in tax than schools being exempt from VAT).

41% of mothers with children aged 5-14 work full time, 32% part time, 27% are not working.

Average UK salary is £35k gross, which is £28.7k take home pay and £6.3k income tax and NI.
-Average take-home pay is more than school fees for one child, or 2 children with 50% teacher discount.
-And the average £6.3k income tax and NI not paid by the SAH mum is a bigger loss to the treasury than an average £3.4k school fees VAT exemption if she worked and used the take home pay to send her DC to private school.

An £18k NMW job (£16.5k net) would fund a DC's education at a school with 30-50% staff discount (which is very normal). But that's not what the 27% of mums enjoying the luxury of not working (and not contributing tax) have chosen.

I'm fine with people making different choices. I'm not fine with people being intellectually dishonest about the relative morality of different choices.

It's strange how you think you're made a counter point when I clearly stated that working at the private school is exactly how some teachers afford(ed) it. 😬
There's also quite a few flaws in your salary argument there, largely in that you assume all of the extra salary is suddenly available for school fees, when clearly it might not be as there will be other costs to deduct (e.g. travel to work).
Can I also suggest that you assess your last paragraph for both patronising content and irony level.🫣

Whilst you qualified "It's very rare for teachers to be able to send their children private" by adding "unless they get a massive discount", the sentence structure obviously implies that the situation is rare overall.

Which it's not.

In my experience it is rare.

Not in mine.

Do you have a child at private school?

As for commuting costs, even the £18k NMW job (£16.5k net) would leave £4.5k spare for commuting and other costs after paying £12k (average £17k day fees with below-average 30% discount applied).

And I stand by my last sentence. People make wrong assumptions without even thinking about them.

I'm not saying that the 27% of mothers who SAH with school age children should work and send their children to private schools.

But I absolutely won't accept you telling me that a VAT exemption on my child's education is less moral than a SAH mum not paying income tax on a job she chose not to do.

You think people earning NMW can afford to send their kids private even with discount? Many on that are struggling with bills.

27% of mothers with school age children (5 - 14 years old) don't work. I'm saying that if they got a NMW at a private school, they could send one child there with discount. If they were able to get a teaching job, they could send 2. Average family has 1.7 kids in the UK.

Hence being a SAH mum of a school age child is a luxury that person is choosing above sending their child to private school.

(Do you see the difference? I'm not saying that anyone on NMW could send their child to private school. I'm saying that many people who SAH could take a NMW job and send a child to private school)