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.

I’m thinking in for a penny in for a pound…..given that it also gives some an advantage @LavenderFields7

It could easily be one of Labours next attacks

Well yes and then we need to stop parents reading to their kids, playing with their kids etc as those things also give an advantage. We need to stop both parents working because that gives a financial advantage to that family. In fact let's just stop families doing anything that gives their kids an advantage over any other kid.

I think poster is referring to schools offsetting the increase with cost reductions and fees increasing by less than the VAT.Some schools are able to do this.

Agree
!ets take them off parents and Put them all in state run boarding schools so everyone gets the same experiences.
It’s a Big Brother world we’re working towards

Well apart from the kids of politicians because it's important that their kids keep their advantages so that they too can go to Oxford like their Labour parents and then tell everyone else how they should live

How much does the state pay per secondary pupil (regardless of parental income)? I heard Rachel Johnson say £7000 + does anyone know if that is correct?

Yes average is 7.5K but can go up to 16K if a child has SEN
So each child in Indy saves the state 7.5K per year plus their parents already pay taxes.

This from Govn website

At some state schools there will also be other parents just as wealthy (with just the same income) but ploughing more of it into an expensive tax free house in the right area.

No, but if enough parents do this, state schools will be £7k per year to educate each child moved, is more money out of the public purse plus larger class sizes etc.
whether you think this is a spite tax or not the numbers simply don't add up.

That's alright, you're allowed to disagree with me, even fundamentally :)

I'm not gaslighting you though, maybe your emotions have got the better of you?

I explicitly said that it's unfair to bring it in mid year but I continue to maintain that your children will, I'm sure, weather the disruption and be fine. Feel free to tell me "I told you so" in 15 years time if you can prove moving to a state school ruined their lives, but I have faith that your children are bright enough and supported enough to succeed in their endeavours.

My sympathies do go to those who are at fee-paying schools due to additional needs or disabilities which are not accommodated in accessible state schools. It's not a situation I envy for either them or their parents, who must justifiably be very worried.

Yes, Labour have seemingly rejected the approach illustrated in the second image (try to improve state schools to narrow the gap with indies), and have instead very firmly plumped for the third image (race to the bottom).

Just on the semantics, Bridget Phillipson has published her own opinion article in the Telegraph and I quote “But one clear choice is to end the tax breaks enjoyed by private schools.” And the article is headed “Tax breaks for private schools are a luxury our country cannot afford
Some of the attacks on our education plans are nothing short of scare-mongering”

So yes, the Education Minister has used all those words. So does it break some guidelines?

By her logic, the country can still afford those “ education tax exemptions” on uni fees and nurseries and tutoring, but just not on private schools?

How does this make any sense? If she is actually incentivising people to use state schools, thereby costing the state more?

This is politics at its simultaneous best/worst. Repeat a catch phrase that is a misrepresentation a certain number of times until the public believes it.

They will have paid lots of stamp duty tax on an expensive house.

Is this policy perhaps the height of Wokism that the US is now loudly proclaiming to be consigned to the past? Is it one last hoorah?

Assume you mean wokeism rather than an Asian cooking style?

OP can use the free £22,500 the state will pay for her 3 dc to put into a bigger house, a better car, or even a Buy - to- Let.

The other money they are no longer paying in fees can also be used for extra private tuition if needed for DC. Then they could maybe fit in an extra holiday or two.

Taxing luxury goods or services is not "woke". JFC does the word even mean anything any more?

@ScrollingLeaves
Well they'll be paying stamp duty on that house, so contributing in that way I suppose.

But also let's dispel this myth of people buying into leafy areas for the good comps and somehow gaming the system.
I no longer live there, but used to live in an area of SW London where houses sell for a lot of money and aspirations are high. Guess what? It is also super well provisioned with private schools - Kingston Grammar, LEH, Surbiton, Hampton Court House etc.
People with money pay for education wherever they happen to live.

Education / a luxury good !

Ah I'm being "emotional"? Not a good look to call another woman hysterical.
I have given the reason I said you were gaslighting in the sentence and sentiment you used ie blaming the schools and completely ignoring Labour's role in it.

I also know that area extremely well. There are very good comps in the area as well as access to a number of grammars. Many still prefer to have the £3million+ home and pay for schooling on top.

“Assume you mean wokeism rather than an Asian cooking style?”

Hehe, yes “wokeism”, at its finest. None of this makes sense, unless you see private schools as some sort of social mobility evil. Because they are essentially financially incentivising all to cost the taxpayer more by using state schools. So they have decided that it is worth paying that, in the interests of social mobility, somehow, and that is “woke”. They want the privileged kids to share their privilege love in state schools.
Financially, whatever they have come up with or convinced someone to come up with is clearly a smokescreen.

On the otherhand, I haven't been accusing anyone of abusive behaviour or of calling people names. Given that how pedantic you are about the correct use of 'tax break', one might be forgiven for thinking you'd use a term like 'gaslighting' correctly.

Private education in a country with universal state education provision is a luxury good, yes.