Tax on school fees

[CheekyUser]

of course it won’t affect the really wealthy but we have three kids at private school and we are now going to withdraw them all. We will see them through the remainder of this school year and from September we have secured places at local state schools. When the alternative is free why would we carry on drawing down on our mortgage and sacrificing holidays and be taxed for doing so. Let the state pay.

Read what I'm writing!
I'm not saying they do to that extent although they certainly relieve pressure of SEN on overstretched state sector.
I'm saying they could do and that it is inconsistent for Labour to attack private education whilst simultaneously court private healthcare.

If it isn't a high societal issue then why the hell attack it? Thank you for admitting that

You mean like Labours tax on private schools 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Some can do fantastically well without any tutoring at all. Mind blowing isn't it?

Some time ago, but I think the Blairs were quite open that they employed tutors from Westminster school for their sons who were attending the highly sought after, state/church fundedLondon Oratory School.

Labour politicians particularly are in a difficult position. They are well paid so can afford private schools but can not be seen to be choosing them. I remember Dianne Abbot was pilloried when she sent her son to a private school. Some of them use the flagship denominational schools like the London Oratory or Grey Coats for girls.

Your claim of “universal state education” is questionable, to say the least, sadly.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/23/the-worst-its-ever-been-teachers-decry-send-crisis-in-englands-schools

https://inews.co.uk/news/england-school-crisis-teachers-burn-out-pupils-lessons-2969580?srsltid=AfmBOoqQ8-AvVwSNGNwkZBT7w5_j-18qrUGgwikSUKNKMVTKVjZj9gSY

Never mind, 1/3 of an extra teacher and a bowl of cornflakes will soon have it sorted!

I agree with you OP. At first when I heard about this policy I agreed with it. Especially not being able to afford to send my children to private school myself.

But the more I think about it and how little it would generate in additional tax income in comparison to what Labour is sending to other Countries in foreign aid, spending on net zero, and what we will potentially be paying to Mauritius in reparations for the Chagos Islands (£800 million per year), the more I realise that this is a petty and spiteful move that will disrupt the education of thousands of children who will have to move to new schools away from their friends.

So they choose schools whose catchment area is £2 million houses to ensure their own precious children have access to the same contacts they would have at indy schools.
They also use free of charge flats from their millionaire mates to ensure their kids have peace and quiet during GCSEs. Yet they are simultaneously very happy to force other people's kids out of schools in GCSE and A Level years with either no state option to go to, or ones that don't offer the same subjects/syllabus.

Fucking hypocrisy doesn't come near!

It's so unfounded and just smacks of the real politics of envy.

@PrimativoZinfandel
It’s unfounded that people use tutors? Really? I thought it was a booming business. Also why does it smack of politics of envy?
However as you said earlier, because you’re so rich you were able to buy a house in the catchment area for one of the best state schools so maybe you don’t need them.

I can’t pretend it’s representative or indicative of what Labour MPs do, but where I live (fairly expensive commuter town) tutoring is absolutely rife in the highly sought after state comprehensives. Houses in catchment don’t go for much under £1m (some go for twice this and then some).

I would expect that pattern to be repeated in comparable schools/areas elsewhere.

Nice try lol

Fee paying schools are a significant societal issue, but the fact that some parents can't afford the increased school fees isn't.

The tired old protestations that privilege for the few benefits everyone don't wash, I'm afraid. They convince fewer people every year.

Suggesting that it's inconsistent of the government to "target" private schools in this way but not doing the same to private healthcare providers wilfully ignores so much of the picture that it would need a new thread. Apples & oranges.

@twistyizzy

I share your frustration! I think we all need to be more honest about the way in which selective state schools operate for the switched on parent.

Selection by post code - multi million pound homes
Selection by religion - London Oratory, Cardinal Vaughan, Grey Coats in London.
Selection by music/language aptitude.
Grammar schools.
Grammar school streams etc etc.

I used to get really angry with smug friends who had got their children into one of the above (often after tutoring and with ongoing tutoring) lecturing me about my school choices.

No it's not.
Posters on here have stated that private healthcare is a luxury because there is a free alternative. You can't have it both ways. Either things you pay for are a luxury or they aren't. If you are claiming that principle is true then you have to apply it to everything, you can't pick and choose what is acceptable luxury and what isn't (which is exactly what Labour are doing).
Funny how healthcare isn't being touched because of Labour donors though.

Exactly

Personally I'm all in favour of wide ranging changes but something tells me you'd be up in arms about the 'radical' socialism that would involve.

I don't buy into socialism at all because it simply hasn't worked anywhere.
Feel free to give me an example of where it has worked for everyone, not just the people in charge.
FYI my parents are socialists still in their 80s and that's how I was brought up but all I've ever seen is them giving more and money to the state and not getting anything back. My mum has Parkinsons but won't claim disability badge/carers allowance etc because "there are people in more need". My dad lost his private pension so lives only on state pension and has now lost WFA cos they are £10 above the threshold.

“They also use free of charge flats from their millionaire mates to ensure their kids have peace and quiet during GCSEs. Yet they are simultaneously very happy to force other people's kids out of schools in GCSE and A Level years with either no state option to go to, or ones that don't offer the same subjects/syllabus.
Fucking hypocrisy doesn't come near!”

@twistyizzy , in fact Starmer continued to use of his millionaire mate’s flat for 3 weeks after his son’s exams finished!

So he’s a liar as well as a fucking hypocrite, quite happily chucking other kids doing GCSEs under the bus. Absolutely no reason why the implementation of policy could not have been staggered exempting those already embarked on GCSE and A Level courses.

I couldn’t stand the Tories but at least we were under no illusions about them, unlike Sanctimonious Keir and chums…

Seeing as you support the policy please can you explain the following:

Beluga Caviar @ £20k per kg - No VAT
• Fendi Jnr Puffer Jacket @ £1.5k - No VAT
• Placing thousands of pounds worth of bets - No VAT

But...

• Children's education and specialist SEN provision - 20% VAT

How about selection by intellect as that plays a significant part too? Does that make you angry?

How about selection by intellect as that plays a significant part too? Does that make you angry?

The pp said it was the extra tutoring that annoyed her since that conferred an advantage over other students.
So therefore since they had used an unfair advantage they shouldn’t be criticising her choice of schools.

@PrimativoZinfandel
“How about selection by intellect as that plays a significant part too? Does that make you angry?”

I rather thought I had covered intellect under the “grammar school” and “grammar school stream” headings or the etc etc bit.

What makes me angry is not selection per se. I think there are strong arguments for selecting students with particular aptitudes for a particular kind of education.

I continue however to be angered by the hypocrisy of usually - wealthy, urban elites - who have manoeuvred to place their own children into flag ship, high performing state schools while simultaneously lecturing those of us who have chosen private schools because no such options were open to us.

The labour ideology is that any success is down to luck and therefore should not be rewarded but penalised. Hard work, resilience, making the right choices/delayed gratification is NOT a factor or if it is it’s because you are lucky in your birth.

All those doctor, nurses, teachers, engineers, etc who have worked their arses off, studied, passed exams and worked there way up to home ownership and enough to send their kids to private schools that no one has ever heard of and never will must pay more and continue to pay more and more because they are just ‘lucky.’

Start a business or run a business with all the risk and worry and pressure - it’s just luck - they must pay and pay again for having the temerity to do well.

I really don’t know why anyone is surprised by this. This is the ideology. If you don’t like it - vote it out next time please.

Well you haven't really covered it off accurately if you have to qualify it with 'often after tutoring and with ongoing tutoring' because there is another group that access coveted selective state schools without tutoring.

@PrimativoZinfandel

“Well you haven't really covered it off accurately if you have to qualify it with 'often after tutoring and with ongoing tutoring' because there is another group that access coveted selective state schools without tutoring”

Sorry to be pedantic BUT a statement which includes OFTEN WITH automatically implies that there will be SOME WITHOUT. If I had wanted to say that all students who go to academically selective schools are tutored I would have used the wording ALWAYS with. So I disagree with your reading.

But in any case you are missing the point. It was about people sitting on nice state school options which meet their childrens needs criticising those who have chosen private schools often because they were unable to access a suitable education for their children.

Most of the country incidentally has no access to academically selective state schools.

You are missing the point. You are suggesting that only a minority are untutored with the use of the word 'often'. You don't know this. In my DC's cohorts there were many DC who found super selective 11+ admission untutored a breeze. Have you had any direct experience of these schools and cohorts?