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?

Well it’s pretty rare given the percentage of children privately educated in the UK in the first place. It’s absolutely not a “common choice”.

Oh do bore off. Why do we need another boring thread saying the same thing.

I'm not buying "massive struggle" with "spaff 20 grand on school fees every year", with or without the holiday as well. My heart bleeds for them.

I grew up in an area with very mixed income levels, where a significant number of children attended various private schools (often right from early primary but many also just for secondary school). I knew quite a few of them. None of their parents were teachers. I knew of lots of children at the state schools whose parents were teachers. I only know of one family whose mother was a head teacher and who sent their children private, however their father also had a very decent income.

I think this just probably shows how detached some folk are from reality?
(Not you, the response like the one quoted)

All assuming that both parents don't already work or may have to increase childcare expenditure, alongside the travel costs, and whatever else.
So naive.

You're one of the people making wrong assumptions. 🫣

This is getting more absurd.

Can I just check what you mean? I'm assuming that you disapprove of the plan to provide free breakfast clubs in primary schools?

You think that there are very wealthy parents who could easily afford to pay for private schools, but refuse to do this and they also expect private school parents to fund the free breakfast clubs for their kids?

It's obvious that this policy is aimed at children who are coming to school without breakfast and unable to learn as a result. Unlike free school meals which have quite narrow eligibility criteria which therefore exclude many very low income families, this won't be means tested so hopefully all children that need them will get them.

I very much doubt that very wealthy parents who voted Labour did so in order to receive free breakfasts for their own children. However, I'm sure that you will disagree with me.

I think the idea that anyone like me (top 1% earner) would be entitled to a free breakfast club is absolutely preposterous. It ought to be means tested.

Wealthy parents abuse their children too, intentionally or not.
I feel like it should be made open to all but regular donations, if you can afford it, should be allowed. Not sure how this would be managed in practice but there's surely a way.

If they are abusive or neglectful then there needs to be some sort of intervention - it is not the state's job to give wealthy people a free breakfast. And the majority who will be using it won't be neglectful, they'll just take the opportunity to get a free breakfast!

Okay, clearly we just have different experiences. I would never pay for private either way as I'm not convinced it is actually better.

There are a number of benefits that used to be universal but are now means tested, e.g. child benefit, free childcare hours and Winter Fuel Allowance.

The means testing of child benefit and free childcare hours has led to one of the cliff edges at a salary of £60,000 that higher earners really object to.

Very wealthy pensioners have not taken kindly to the withdrawal of the £300 WFA.

I believe that, if possible, benefits like these should be universal as, hopefully, if higher earners receive some benefits for the high taxes they pay, they are more likely feel that they to have a stake in the welfare state.

Plus means testing costs money.

If it works anything like the infant school free meals, you don't have to take them up, but I'd encourage you to have breakfast on census day as the school will then get funding for your breakfast.

Most schools have a school fund and lots of wealthy parents donate the value of the free lunch to it already.

Sometimes providing a benefit for all is actually cheaper that means testing it. And sometimes making people jump through a hoop for a benefit means the most needy don't get it. If I had children still at school, I would probably occasionally use it, but contribute more to the school fund.

Good.

Yes - I've never received child benefit, free hours etc and whilst my parents generation benefited from these not being means tested, I accept that these days, as country, we simply don't have the money to do that. However, whilst I m happy to accept that i don't receive any of these benefits, I do object to paying even more tax to pay for other wealthy parents' kids to have breakfast - that's going entirely the other way.

Yes, I'm sure many would feel the same.

It's absolutely not entitled, it's basic behavioural changes which will occur as a result of this policy. I'm state school educated and actually grew in a very deprived part of a city but there were an abundance of private schools in the city which meant that some of my friends from the local council estate actually stood a chance of (and did) get into the grammar.

The entitled aspect relates to people assuming they'll somehow be entering the list in a more privileged position.

It's not because there will be a percentage of those who might otherwise have gone private who will now go to grammar school or buy a house nearer to a good state option. It doesnt mean they sll eill but thrrr eill inevitably be a proportion. That's not entitled, it's just a fact.

More entitlement showing.
(Also, were you touch typing because a few words look shifted?).

What wrong assumption?