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?

It's really not entitlement!

I just have fat thumbs and type too quickly!

It really is entitlement.

Most of what you wrote regarding getting a NMW job to pay towards school fees. I've explained already. 🫣

Yes. Which is why my comment relates to the 27% of mothers who SAH with school age children. Ie aren't already working.

The great thing about private school is that they provide great wrap around care. I'd be very surprised if £4.5k didn't cover local commuting and after school care (approx £30 per week at our school).

Keep showing your bubble naivety.

If my children go to grammar school, how is that entitlement?

It's really not entitlement. It's basic maths.

Any kids who would have gone to a private school but instead go to a grammar or top comp means that some other kid misses out. Even 1.

That's without even considering the probability that a displaced family can afford tutoring or a house close to a good school.

Keep making shit up without being specific.

After all, specifics would allow me to show why you're wrong.

Like I said, I'm not actually suggesting that those 27% of mothers with school age children who don't work should necessarily get a job and send their kid to private school. Just that they could if they chose to.

I'm pointing out that them choosing the luxury of not working and instead giving more time and energy to their children is a similar luxury to choosing to work and pay school fees with VAT exempt.

Both are tax not paid, rather than actual benefits handed out. Both benefit primarily that family's child, but do also benefit wider society.

BUT
The choice to SAH and have more time with kids costs the state more in lost tax revenue than exempting school fees from VAT.

And private schooling does also save the government direct spending, which the SAH mum doesn't.

Yet weirdly you see the SAH mum as being morally better than exempting VAT on school fees.

Probably because it's a luxury so widely taken up by people you identify with. Whereas it's easy to 'other' a tiny number of people, who politicians love to say nasty things about.

Not very clear thinking.

And frankly, society is meant to be reciprocal.

When I contribute significantly more than my per person 'share' of UK state costs (the boundary being approx £40k income), I'm means tested out of most state spending, and despite that Labour politicians despise me and my family so much that they're willing to actually spend net tax money to harm us, why the hell should I feel engaged with society?

The wording and tone of the original comment.

I'm not the one making up unrealistic scenarios. 🫣

When you communicate in the condescending tone you've been using and give ridiculous unrealistic examples then why would anyone want to engage.
Deluded bubble mentality.

You've not 'explained' at all. 🫣🫣🫣

Why do you think 'some other kid' should automatically miss out?
It's entitlement to think it wouldn't be the ex-private kid who might miss out, because why should they automatically get someone else's place? They won't automatically go up the list. 🫣🫣🫣🫣

You're assuming quite a lot.
I've said nothing about morality.
I've said nothing about who I identify with.
Again, you're making ridiculous suggestions, based on your bubble scenario and which you really haven't thought through in any way whatsoever.

It's entitlement to think an ex-private childd will automatically get the grammar place over another child.

I said "a percentage / proportion" so unless you're saying that all kids who would otherwise have gone private will fail the 11 plus or won't live in catchments of good state options, then you are absolutely wrong.

My kids are very bright and will go to grammar. If they go private then they won't go to grammar. It's basic so I'm not sure what you don't understand?

However much people “struggle”, they can still afford the fees that millions of others could never hope to pay. That makes them wealthier than most.

Like I said, 'even 1'.

Do you really think not a single private school kid won't get into grammar?

Passing an exam/being bright and living in the right area doesn't necessarily ensure a place though, because places can be limited, especially at sought after schools. The ex-private child won't automatically come before the other children and has no more right to a place there.
This is also quite basic.

What makes you think I'm suggesting that?
The point is that the ex-private child has no more right to a place at a popular state grammar than any other child. Good schools are oversubscribed and ex-private parents cannot push their way in.

Actually OP I do think the state sector will change. Yes, we do need policies etc to work on the state sector very long term. But, some families will now have to chose state and that changes the demographic and mix of a school. That in turn, in my direct experience improves many schools because there is more money for the PTA because there are higher earning parents (a flippant example). Of course, the PTA shouldn’t have to pay for basics anyway, but this is step 1 in many that are needed.

Look at the criteria!!! It absolutely does!!!

Ex-private parents are determined to tell us all that it does.