Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

All Private School Parents Should Get State School Places to Fight Back VAT

274 replies

LondonSam · 29/07/2024 17:19

All Private School Parents Should Get State School Places to Fight Back VAT

OP posts:
Charlie2121 · 30/07/2024 07:12

SummerBarbecues · 30/07/2024 06:06

It’s a good thing that I totally support. We need tax rises and this only tax those who are more able.

We pay VAT for many things. Maybe you should lobby to get them dropped? VAT is usually a regressive tax because the poor pays a lot more of their income on VAT.

This doesn’t tax most that are more able to pay. Over half of even the highest earning families still use state schools. The tax will result in many lower earning families who use private schools subsidising some higher earning families who use state schools.

If the aim was to tax on the basis of fairness and affordability the lob income tax changes would have been used.

TwigTheWonderKid · 30/07/2024 07:15

potionsmaster · 30/07/2024 07:02

Yes @ArabellaFishwife but that's only true for moves this year. The 'crowding out' effect won't start to be seen until next year when people start going through the state system at the main entry points who would otherwise have gone private. (Though I bet there are plenty of families currently holding Year 7 places in both state and private schools for September who'll now choose to take up their state place. That will affect availability of late places for kids still on waiting lists for state places, eg who are hoping for a better school than the one allocated, or who are moving house late.)

@SummerBarbecues that's my point. Empty places don't cost the taxpayer anything until they're filled. If a class has 25 pupils currently because a school is under subscribed, it will cost the taxpayer £30K per year to fill those five places with ex private school pupils. If they stayed in private schools, it would cost the taxpayer nothing. Even more of an impact if the number of pupils moving mean that the school needs more teachers or more classrooms. That's great for the school of course, but it's still a cost to the taxpayer.

@potionsmaster your last comment shoes how little you understand the economics of state education. Although there will be an ultimate "cost" to educating more children in the state sector funding is very much a matter of "bums on seats". If a school is under subscribed it doesn't get the same income it would if it met it's PAN and means that fixed costs, including teachers, are now higher per capita. So an influx of children is a good thing for schools.

And families have always done place blocking in the system sector. Where I live they apply for state places to hedge their bets when their children are applying to selective private schools and can't even be bothered to inform the school state before the beginning of term that they will not be taking up the places. This leads children on the waiting lists for the state school having a totally unnecessarily anxious summer.

whataloadofhotair · 30/07/2024 07:20

OMG what a load of vitriol. Not to mention pure jealousy.

Nellodee · 30/07/2024 07:21

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

mugboat · 30/07/2024 07:29

Be my guest.

Charlie2121 · 30/07/2024 07:33

Hobbesmanc · 30/07/2024 06:58

I just don't believe that parents who chose to go private are already so stretched by fees that large numbers will withdraw their children

If ideologically you believe in private education, then you'll find that twenty percent. Cancel the ski trips, dip into savings. Ask granny.

I think there's a lot of parents moaning who lack any self awareness when lots of families rely on help to give their kids breakfast

That’s true to a degree but is only part of the picture.

I didn’t have a child until I knew I earned enough to fund private education for them. I even went so far as buying a house in a nice area with rubbish local state schools as this was better value for me if I never intended to use any state schools.

Many other families are not like ours though, particularly those with more than 1 child. Many of them could be seeing an instant tax rise of £10k pa from January. Add in other cost of living changes in recent years and that is a huge ongoing tax burden for them to bear.

The idea that all private school parents have other significant discretionary expenses that they could review to offset this simply isn’t true. In the same way that I spent less on my house to help afford the fees, many others spend less on other activities to help fund it.

The VAT will definitely hit the marginal parents hard primarily because bursaries will be significantly reduced or in some cases eradicated altogether. At our school you have to be have a household income under 75k to qualify for a bursary. Thats 2 parents each earning UK average salary not exactly super rich.

The final point about self awareness is one that I really struggle to accept. While of course nobody wants to see anyone in poverty the answer isn’t to use that as a reason to take away anything from anyone who isn’t in that position.

Higher earners bankroll the UK. Without them poverty levels would explode. We should be supporting the high tax payers to continue generating huge sums for the benefit of others. What Labour appears to be doing is to disincentivise higher earners which will be very counter productive in the long run.

Make school fees too expensive and people won’t use them. They also won’t bother to earn the money needed to pay for them which of course reduces income tax receipts.

Make pensions less attractive people at high marginal tax rates won’t bother earning more and will pay less tax.

Increase CGT and people will see investments as riskier so will reduce them.

All these policies are extremely short sighted and when combined are going to create a very poor outlook for the UK.

Growth is the only answer not taxation. Unfortunately this awful government we have been burdened with don’t understand that. It won’t end well for many.

mugboat · 30/07/2024 07:34

If the state schools all provided an excellent education and safe environment for your child, would you still want to go private?

Imagine the benefit to our system if the people who paid private fees, instead sent their kid to the local comp and donated to the school, as a one off, what they would have paid in fees for one year.

A little thought experiment:
a. what that comp would do with the money
b. how much it would benefit the school and all children who attend

Ritasueandbobtoo9 · 30/07/2024 07:35

But you won’t as you don’t want the chavyness to rub off on your kids.

mugboat · 30/07/2024 07:36

Clma · 30/07/2024 04:53

Oh do bore off. No one cares other than a tiny minority.

Private education is a luxury, you pay tax on all other luxuries. Either pay it, or accept that you can't actually afford it!

the fact this comes up time and again truly shows the demographic of mumsnet users. Much higher %of private school parents here than the national average.

PuddlesPityParty · 30/07/2024 07:36

And who are you getting back at exactly? The kids in the state school? You sound ridiculous and entitled. Don’t spit your dummy out because you have to pay a little bit extra.

Charlie2121 · 30/07/2024 07:37

mugboat · 30/07/2024 07:34

If the state schools all provided an excellent education and safe environment for your child, would you still want to go private?

Imagine the benefit to our system if the people who paid private fees, instead sent their kid to the local comp and donated to the school, as a one off, what they would have paid in fees for one year.

A little thought experiment:
a. what that comp would do with the money
b. how much it would benefit the school and all children who attend

Edited

What about the existing state school parents who earn more than the newly arrived ex-private school parents. Why should the new parents subsidise them when they earn less?

PuddlesPityParty · 30/07/2024 07:38

Charlie2121 · 30/07/2024 07:33

That’s true to a degree but is only part of the picture.

I didn’t have a child until I knew I earned enough to fund private education for them. I even went so far as buying a house in a nice area with rubbish local state schools as this was better value for me if I never intended to use any state schools.

Many other families are not like ours though, particularly those with more than 1 child. Many of them could be seeing an instant tax rise of £10k pa from January. Add in other cost of living changes in recent years and that is a huge ongoing tax burden for them to bear.

The idea that all private school parents have other significant discretionary expenses that they could review to offset this simply isn’t true. In the same way that I spent less on my house to help afford the fees, many others spend less on other activities to help fund it.

The VAT will definitely hit the marginal parents hard primarily because bursaries will be significantly reduced or in some cases eradicated altogether. At our school you have to be have a household income under 75k to qualify for a bursary. Thats 2 parents each earning UK average salary not exactly super rich.

The final point about self awareness is one that I really struggle to accept. While of course nobody wants to see anyone in poverty the answer isn’t to use that as a reason to take away anything from anyone who isn’t in that position.

Higher earners bankroll the UK. Without them poverty levels would explode. We should be supporting the high tax payers to continue generating huge sums for the benefit of others. What Labour appears to be doing is to disincentivise higher earners which will be very counter productive in the long run.

Make school fees too expensive and people won’t use them. They also won’t bother to earn the money needed to pay for them which of course reduces income tax receipts.

Make pensions less attractive people at high marginal tax rates won’t bother earning more and will pay less tax.

Increase CGT and people will see investments as riskier so will reduce them.

All these policies are extremely short sighted and when combined are going to create a very poor outlook for the UK.

Growth is the only answer not taxation. Unfortunately this awful government we have been burdened with don’t understand that. It won’t end well for many.

Show quote history

But why exactly do you think it’s fair that private schools do not have to (or should rather, hadn’t had to) pay VAT?

whataloadofhotair · 30/07/2024 07:42

Charlie2121-well said

Halfemptyhalfling · 30/07/2024 07:47

Charlie2121 · 30/07/2024 07:33

That’s true to a degree but is only part of the picture.

I didn’t have a child until I knew I earned enough to fund private education for them. I even went so far as buying a house in a nice area with rubbish local state schools as this was better value for me if I never intended to use any state schools.

Many other families are not like ours though, particularly those with more than 1 child. Many of them could be seeing an instant tax rise of £10k pa from January. Add in other cost of living changes in recent years and that is a huge ongoing tax burden for them to bear.

The idea that all private school parents have other significant discretionary expenses that they could review to offset this simply isn’t true. In the same way that I spent less on my house to help afford the fees, many others spend less on other activities to help fund it.

The VAT will definitely hit the marginal parents hard primarily because bursaries will be significantly reduced or in some cases eradicated altogether. At our school you have to be have a household income under 75k to qualify for a bursary. Thats 2 parents each earning UK average salary not exactly super rich.

The final point about self awareness is one that I really struggle to accept. While of course nobody wants to see anyone in poverty the answer isn’t to use that as a reason to take away anything from anyone who isn’t in that position.

Higher earners bankroll the UK. Without them poverty levels would explode. We should be supporting the high tax payers to continue generating huge sums for the benefit of others. What Labour appears to be doing is to disincentivise higher earners which will be very counter productive in the long run.

Make school fees too expensive and people won’t use them. They also won’t bother to earn the money needed to pay for them which of course reduces income tax receipts.

Make pensions less attractive people at high marginal tax rates won’t bother earning more and will pay less tax.

Increase CGT and people will see investments as riskier so will reduce them.

All these policies are extremely short sighted and when combined are going to create a very poor outlook for the UK.

Growth is the only answer not taxation. Unfortunately this awful government we have been burdened with don’t understand that. It won’t end well for many.

Show quote history

High earners appear to have bankrupted the UK rather than bankrolled it via profit taking and debt loaded companies

Dibblydoodahdah · 30/07/2024 07:54

mugboat · 30/07/2024 07:34

If the state schools all provided an excellent education and safe environment for your child, would you still want to go private?

Imagine the benefit to our system if the people who paid private fees, instead sent their kid to the local comp and donated to the school, as a one off, what they would have paid in fees for one year.

A little thought experiment:
a. what that comp would do with the money
b. how much it would benefit the school and all children who attend

Edited

What about if all the state school parents who earn the same or more than me, made a one off contribution to their DC’s state schools equivalent to my DC’s school fees.
That would make an amazing difference wouldn’t it?

FancyBiscuitsLevel · 30/07/2024 07:57

Oh wait sorry @LondonSam - I’ve just realised what you are doing - you can’t afford private schooling (probably never could and have been pushing yourself for years) and in order to save face about pulling your dc out of private, you are trying to reframe this personal failure as a political statement.

OK - go you! Stick it to the man etc.

SalmonWellington · 30/07/2024 07:57

Sigh.

Ok. Here goes.

1)We want you to send your kids to state school, because then you'll have skin in the game and want to support them. Well off engaged parents taking their kids private is disastrous for state schools.
2) Demographics - the long echo of the baby boom - means primary school numbers are falling. Again, we want you to send your kids to state to keep numbers up and keep schools open.

The big issue is for kids with additional needs who can't cope with state schools as they are.

Dibblydoodahdah · 30/07/2024 08:07

SalmonWellington · 30/07/2024 07:57

Sigh.

Ok. Here goes.

1)We want you to send your kids to state school, because then you'll have skin in the game and want to support them. Well off engaged parents taking their kids private is disastrous for state schools.
2) Demographics - the long echo of the baby boom - means primary school numbers are falling. Again, we want you to send your kids to state to keep numbers up and keep schools open.

The big issue is for kids with additional needs who can't cope with state schools as they are.

Sigh, here goes:

  1. Given that 93% of children are already educated in state schools, how do you think the remaining 7% of parents would making a difference? And that’s 7% on the basis that every child transferred over to state which isn’t going to happen. There are already huge numbers of middle class, engaged parents in the state system who haven’t been able to make a difference. A few more will not magically resolve things in failing state schools.
  2. The numbers are not falling as much as first thought. The DfE recently updated their figures on this. In addition, any spare places are not spread evenly across the country. In the city where my DC’s private school is situated there are no spare places at any primary school in year 5 and only one school has places in year 6. That’s out of over 30 primary schools. The FOI request didn’t cover other primary years but I suspect that they are just as bad due to the building of a huge amount of new homes in the city which is still ongoing. The school nearest my DC’s private school has a warning on their website that anyone moving to the area needs to contact the LEA as there are no school places!
Greychairs · 30/07/2024 08:07

Greytulips · 29/07/2024 17:21

I’m not sure that would work for GCSE years or Alevels.

Some parents have too much money to care about the VAT and will have an accountant write it off.

It will only affects those on the cusp of affording it.

I’d be interested to hear of your accounting experience to enable this…

It’s one thing to contribute to the debate on the VAT on school fees issue, but this sort of nonsense only serves to highlight how people think VAT works…. No you can’t ‘write it off’.

At some point after the general politics of envy has finished, and state schools are overwhelmed, the education department is also overwhelmed with parents trying to get EHCP’s, SEN kids school places at private schools are no longer affordable for desperate parents because their school has to close, there are no genuinely newly recruited 6500 teachers and Grammar school places are taken away from the able but not able-to-afford-tutoring-kids - please come back and regale us all with how marvellous an idea this is.

Education has always been VAT exempt. Charitable status is a separate issue which even the Labour govt understands it cannot unravel without affecting a wider sector. Now the floodgates have opened on charging VAT for education/tuition you’ll have other educational institutions and associated business’ trying to recoup previously written off VAT expense because they are now able to charge it. If you’re ok with that, crack on. For me, the wider unintended consequences of this policy is the greater issue than concerning myself about what 7% of parents of school age children choose to spend their money on.

Marseillaise · 30/07/2024 08:07

Good thinking, OP, undersubscribed state schools could do with a boost to their numbers.

SalmonWellington · 30/07/2024 08:11

@Dibblydoodahdah

Charming that you're happy to let state schools fail. You might be more bothered if your kids were at one. Which rather proves my point.

Moominmammacat · 30/07/2024 08:11

All People Should Write Important Sentences With Lots Of Capital Letters ... then we'll know they are important. Just like all the children in private schools.

Dibblydoodahdah · 30/07/2024 08:13

SalmonWellington · 30/07/2024 08:11

@Dibblydoodahdah

Charming that you're happy to let state schools fail. You might be more bothered if your kids were at one. Which rather proves my point.

Edited

No, I’m not kidding you. If 93% of parents haven’t made a difference, why would an extra 7% make a difference?

whataloadofhotair · 30/07/2024 08:14

Cant believe the amount of jealousy this post has created. Can't everyone just have a sensible discussion??

mugboat · 30/07/2024 08:14

Charlie2121 · 30/07/2024 07:37

What about the existing state school parents who earn more than the newly arrived ex-private school parents. Why should the new parents subsidise them when they earn less?

Show quote history

It was a thought experiment. it's not going to happen.

The reason I suggested it, is that some people want/can pay extra for their children's education. Would they still do it if the cash went to a state school? There's no doubt that the school would improve.

I can't afford private sch fees but I support the school when I can.

Swipe left for the next trending thread