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.

The Problem is, not all state schools are like yours. I
know because I’ve taught in them for years.

Some schools are barely keeping to together.

Our kids all started a fantastic state schools. When we moved out of London the schooling situation was very different and also we couldn’t get all our kids into the same school. We did chose to go down the private school route because at the time we were both working. What has happened over the last few years is that private schools have pushed up prices and this tax is another massive increase. It is now unaffordable for us. School fees take up every penny we earn and we live off borrowed money - so there comes a point when you are have to reassess and look at options. We are lucky that we live near a really good sixth form college. The secondary school situation is more of a worry. I went to state school and I have no problem with it. I also don’t see why people should be criticised for wanting the best for your children - surely it is human nature to try and give the very best education you can. On taxing school fees I don’t understand why private schools are singled out. Why not tax universities as well? What’s the logic?

It is unusual to be able to secure a state school place in advance. Indeed I had thought it impossible,

You apply in the main admissions round (which have not yet made allocations for Sept 25) or you apply in-year when you need a place, and you need to take up the offer in a timely fashion (3 weeks or so).

That's fine. Your decision. Nobody really cares except folk who have children at private school. It really isn't an issue for anybody else. You will save a lot of money.

Well I have

I will most likely have to encourage dd to go back into state for 6th form. In our county, the 6th form deadlines are fast approaching but not until mid Jan. Whereabouts are you in the country @CheekyUser if your chosen 6th form has already offered a conditional place to your dc?

So (having read your updates) you have two children who it sounds like were already going to go to state sixth form college after finishing GCSEs, and no actual "secured state place" for your youngest, who you can't afford to pay for any more as you were living on "borrowed money".

So I'm not sure that your decisions are anything to do with VAT.

Yep, that will cost the tax payer about 24k. It's bloody madness.

I wish you and your children all the best. It is a difficult decision and it sounds like you have done the best possible for your children.

State education can also be topped up by tutoring if needed and that regular 1:1 time with a subject expert can really make a difference 😀.

Hants colleges such as Peter Symonds will already have offered some places.

It depends on your definition of disposable. I think the government terms it as anything after taxes.

Yes, why indeed. Most people have already clocked on to the fact that they could send their dc to school for free and not have to sacrifice holidays etc.

It's great that we live in a country where a free education is provided.

Hmm, though I wouldn’t say an offer is the same as ‘securing a place’.

For somewhere like PS it is really. With circa 2000 students per year. They take you, and if you don't make the grades for your course they find you an alternate.
It isn't like a superselective grammar with limited places and wanting an average of grade 8.

I guess my broad point is that if you have children, they need to be educated somehow. The cost of educating children from primary school all the way through secondary education needs to be born by someone. Either the state pays for them to be educated (through general taxation) or parents (who are able to afford it) may or may not choose to pay to educate their children. It makes no sense to me to Tax people extra for taking the burden off the state. This whole stupid tax cannot be a tax raising exercise.

I think it is perfectly obvious that the tax isn't meant to be a money raising exercise. It it to get more people to use state education. That way the more invested parents will put their time and money into their local state school, not a private one.
(The kids with SEN that the state system fails are presumably unfortunate collateral damage.)

There's no way you have actually secured places at local state schools from September. For transition years reception, y3 if you are in an area that separates infant and junior, y7 the places haven't been announced for September and won't be until March/April. Y12 may have made conditional offers but they aren't secured until after GCSE results day
For any other yeargroup unless the school is so undersubscribed that there is no chance of them filling up, they simply do not keep places open for 2 terms. If you are offered a place you are expected to start within 2 weeks. If you don't, the place is withdrawn and given to someone else.

I'm not a fan of VAT on school fees but it was a flagship policy democratically voted for - the taxpayers are unequivocally happy to pay for your children to receive the same level of education as the other 93% of the population totally free at their expense and if you are happy to accept that then there's no problem. If you want something better than that for your children, the cost is the cost like with anything else that some people can afford and some can't and some in the middle have to decide where their priorities are. Also not a problem.

Congratulations on saving yourself over £50k a year! What are you going to do with all the extra cash?

I'm not trying to be goady or awkward but where I am, many of my friends who had children in private schools took them out for local v good state 6th form colleges. Partly, they said this was due to the perception that it IMPROVED their chances of getting into top unis because they were applying from state schools.

For your third child, it would seem keeping them in private might be the decision you may still take in September.

In reality, it's likely that whatever you spend you new disposable income one (the savings from the first two being in state sixth form) you will likely pay vat on, be it driving lessons or whatever, 20% will likely go to the treasury in tax.

Oh dear. Welcome to state school. Your children will be fine and you can cut down on working hours saving £££.

If you have a good 6th form college, that seems like a very sensible idea to choose that for your older ones, if it offers the subjects they're looking for.

I personally think the advantage of private comes earlier, with more individual focus, opportunities outside the curriculum and the way school expectations shape the kids behaviour and character.

Guidance on next steps is the main thing I see being lost by switching at 6th form. Many state schools are good at supporting DC getting the grades, but if your DC is a bit uncertain about their path then they can fall between the cracks a bit. You can provide that guidance yourself of course - you'll just need to be on top of it in a way you might not be used to.

Access to less usual subjects / combinations is the other thing - but if the 6th form college offers the combination of subjects your DC want to do, that great.

I'm another one who doesn't understand why you aren't keeping your younger DC in private until 6th form, if the secondaries aren't good where you are. Which year are they in? Why the sudden change? You've suddenly got lots more disposable income, with your older 2 moving to state!

So you’re blaming Labour and their tax policy, rather than the school that has hiked up their fees, probably way beyond inflation, over the years you’ve used it?

School fees pay for teacher salaries, pensions + utility bills, all of which have risen above inflation. Most schools spend 75% of income on staffing (that's why they have smaller class sizes) and only run on approx 1 term's surplus. Eton et al are outliers and make up 1% of the Indy schools in the UK.
I have no issue paying fees which rise each year (steadily not ridiculously) because I acknowledge the price of attracting and retaining good teachers etc. I have an issue being taxed an extra 20% purely because I am told that as a median salary earner (35K) I have the broadest shoulders when there are more millionaires using state schools than indy! I have an issue with a disingenuous tax that harms many for hardly any ££ and is based purely on spite of the SoS and several of the cabinet.

Yep, I absolutely and completely blame Labour.

Schools have increased their fees both to cover increasing costs and also in order to provide a great education for the kids. Most are non-profit-making. I'm very happy with my DC's school's choices.

Labour on the other hand have introduced an ideologically driven, punitive tax which will raise no money because it will make parents like OP choose to stop subsidising the state. It will only cause harm - to kids taken out of private school and to kids in state school sharing state resources (yes, I know about falling school rolls. But that could have actually benefitted the reducing number of state kids, by keeping funding the same which would naturally increase per-student funding. Imagine! A policy which actually benefitted state kids without harming others! 'Doesn't compute' for Labour, of course)

So yes, I absolutely blame this stupid policy from an incompetent, short-sighted (and hopefully short-lived) Labour government.

Seems you’re cutting your nose off to spite your face with the little one.