Private school tax ‘forces’ parents to put their children in state schools | Diarmid Mackenzie
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ต.ค. 2024
- “To my mind, it’s crazy to be putting a £1,000, £2,000 tax on those families that have below average incomes,” says Diarmid Mackenzie, Chair of Governors at Sands School in Devon.
📻 Listen to Times Radio - www.thetimes.c...
📍 Subscribe to our channel - / @listentotimesradio
🗞 Subscribe to The Times www.thetimes.c...
📲 Get the free Times Radio app www.thetimes.c...
This comments section is precisely what is wrong with Britain. A certain section of society hate others aspiring and doing well. In other countries, if you are a high earner then that is a good thing. In Britain, being a high earner is almost something to be ashamed of - despite paying so much tax. It is frowned upon if you do well, and you must be dragged down to the lowest common denominator - just like what this policy is attempting to do.
Perhaps if they used the state schools they might actually have a vested interest in improving them.
Exactly.
Literally how they do it in Finland. Private schools are banned for exactly this purpose.
Exactly!
@@Deadjim17 Private schools are not banned in Finland. Check out the International School of Helsinki, Ressun lukio, and Helsinki European School. All are private and well-regarded.
You may remember the 2019 Parkfield Community School protests, where Muslim parents complained about teaching transgenderism to primary school children. Even though the vast majority of parents wanted such teaching to stop - or not start until the children were older - the school refused to change the policy. As a result, 600 children were withdrawn from the school. Most are now being home-schooled.
Perhaps now they will care about how state education is funded….
Except, state schools are already oversubscribed, with considerable staffing shortages.
An average key stage three core subject class is already 27 students.
An influx from Private school would have an effect on the Education sector. #worklifebalance
@@lovelylocolad the taxes raised will have a positive effect though.
@@T0K0R1.N we will need more schools and alternative provision buildings with experienced, trained and qualified staff at every level.
That's for your Education Minister.
Well said!
Right now people with kids in private school pay taxes for a state school place which they don't use and the state system is still a mess. No way forcing more kids into state schools will help things...
Lots put their children in Private schools because of lack of good state schools.They go without A lot themselves to do so.
I've known several families who have turned to private education because the state school system has failed their children. These children have been on the cusp of being excluded, and the private schools have been able to focus them and put them on a better path. (I think this headmaster is hinting at this early on).
All parents seek a better life for their children and will make considerable sacrifices to obtain it!
Maybe they will sacrifice for their children. However we have had 14 years too many of the rich, snobbish and socially climbing brigade sacrificing other people's children while the dictatorship of their choice bled the state school system dry and starved it of teachers and resources.
Its different now, when its coming home to you, isn't it? Spare us the crocodile tears. And close the snob factories that do nothing but turn out arrogant toffs for the Old Pals League.
@@debbielondon1809yes, and somehow hard working parents who make a choice to send their kids to private at vasts expense are punished by this government for the incompetence of the same government who cannot provide high quality education for all, the irony.
@@dianamincher6479 Not all.
The powerful will ALWAYS have a way of forming elitist schools away from the riff raff. Taxing private schools to 'make them care about improving state schools' is not an argument. The Soviet Union only had public schools but they too had elitist schools that the powerful families had exclusive access to.
This is not about raising money. The truth is it's about abolishing private schools.
Maybe it is maybe it isn’t but after a succession of Tory idiots all with a private education that gave them an entitlement complex, running the country and state school system into the ground, I honestly find it had to feel sad about it.
Why on earth should private schools get a free ride? I see absolutely zero reason why this lifestyle choice should get a free pass.
Free ride?
Free ride, what? I pay my taxes, which go towards providing State Schools - which we don't use, but other parents do, so I am subsidising THEM.
My childen are entitled to two places at State Schools, which the LEA are obliged to provide at the cost of around £7K per year each. BUT, we dont use them, so are saving said LEA around £14K per year.
Please explain the "free ride", because you are certainly not paying for my kids education. I am paying for yours.
@@siangriffiths3691Well said. The original commenter has suddenly gone quiet, obviously because they know you are right.
The people getting a free ride are middle class parents at state schools. They should be charged fees.
Parents with money will just send to state school and put in extra tuition. Will not help. Will collapse the education system just like banning high schools did for the lower classes.
Yes. Parents who can will just move to the best catchments if they have to put their children in state schools. Any houses near Grammars are going to be even more desirable. I have 2 privately educated children, and the idea that I would somehow put money and resources into a State if they moved there is mad. I'm not paying for music lessons etc, and sharing the tutor with those that aren't!
If state schools were allowed to charge modest fees, means tested, that would make a real difference.
Sending kids to private school is a lifestyle choice, not a human right.
Has anyone else noticed that the media is obsessed by VAT on private schools? Could it be a massive class bias in the media (this is a Murdoch outlet), or that so many journalists send their kids to such schools?
Remember only 7% of school students go to private school, even less in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
@@FranzBieberkopf not really, where we live best performing state schools always full, even those has issues like drug selling, using and kids having sex as young as 12 years old. We were not accepted in any good rated schools and were only given option to go to a bad rated school, my child has dyslexia, shy, only child, has low confidence, none of these schools are suitable for my child. So as a low income family we sacrifice for her wellbeing and education and pay in a school in Surrey which is very expensive but we have no choice. This school is full of children which have learning differences. Imagine these kids going to the local state schools, they will be lost. In private school they are helped according to their needs so in the future they can be tax payers.
@@kemalistdevrimturkaydnlanm168 If you think 12 year olds are having sex in your local schools then they are not performing well. Outside of Romeo and Juliet 12 year olds don't have sex unless they are forced into it.
@@kevinsmarts9953 I can assure you these things happing in excellent rated schools at Surreys good neighbourhoods. My best friends husband is a headteacher, we hear shocking stories all the time. Also my neighbour is working in state education sector, she works so hard with her husband and get grandparents help to send their kids to private school so she is not exposed to bad culture. There should be some official data I can imagine.
@@kevinsmarts9953 I don’t think, I know from first hand like speaking to headmasters.
Do you really think that private school dont have drugs and alcohol abuse! Or that pupiles dont have sex with each other? I went to private school ane i can tell you all of the above takes place. 😂@kemalistdevrimturkaydnlanm168
I do not remember the times making such a fuss about the state of some areas of the state school system, the reason, they are not bothered in most cases about the situation. I have no issue with people sending children to private schools, as some of my own family went to public school. But for the life of me I cannot see why a certain minority of the education system should get what is effectively a tax breaks for institutions that only a limited number can attend. It is obvious that the Times has a vested interest, so the reporting is always going to be biased but that is nothing new.
Then we should be exempt from paying taxes for state education. I am already fed up for paying for kids who are on full bursary because of their individual circumstances. I pay taxes for state education, I also pay for private school fees, the school as a charitable institution houses lots of non paying kids which is a cause that my child’s facilities affected. For example we have to raise funds in non ending fund raising activities paying out of my pocket and spending my time to pay for kids who don’t pay, the school can not afford proper sound systems and my child’s summer production suffers.
Universities and private nurseries are VAT exempt.
@@kemalistdevrimturkaydnlanm168send your kids to a state school, pay for a few after school activities and a nice tutor then think of the money you would save! Just a thought.
@@kemalistdevrimturkaydnlanm168 write to your MP and ask them to improve the state school then.
With all this concern over such a tiny minority of pupils, remember that with every child returning to state school, comes an above averagely well off parent with a sudden vested interest in supporting the state system.
(Disappointing to lose the accent and the contacts, of course, which is mainly what they’ve been paying for) 🌷
It is not a tax, private schools have received essentially charitable status whist remaining exclusive an making profits. Not available to other business, including educational business.
OK,treat them like businesses then and they can RECLAIM the VAT on goods/services they purchase. I'm sure the Exchequer can afford it. Unless Labour wants to rewrite the VAT laws for businesses just to attack private schools, and face a discrimination claim
Parents who send their children to private schools are not necessarily rich or even comfortably off. Many send their children to private schools because the state sector does not provide the education which meets their child's needs. I know of a particularly gifted young boy who was brilliant at music, particularly the violin and cello. No state school could offer him lessons in these instruments. He won a scholarship to the local private school and had all the encouragement and lessons he needed. His parents were not well off at all. They both worked full time, and let out their house for rent to fund his reduced fees. The family lived in an adapted cabin in the garden. He flourished at the private school and won a place at the Royal Northern School of Music at 16. That could never have happened in a state school. Don't forget parents of private school pupils pay for their child's education TWICE. Once through taxes and again in school fees out of taxed income.
@@Goldenlion148 There is provision available for such young people. They are distributed round the country and are known as Centres of Excellence.
Wrong. Tthey get far more effective subsidy in tthe form of VAT relief than it costs to fund a state school place.
@@robinmcewan8473 Not at the time that this young man was at school.
Have these parents tried tightening their belts? Maybe no more avocado toast? Or maybe they could cut back on holidays and try to live within thier means.
Yes, they can tighten their belts by sending their children to state schools.
Many will have already cut out avocado toast to enable them to afford to send their children to private school.
Or they could get better paying jobs.
@rodneyfungus8249 oh no little Phillipa and Sebastian will have to go to a normal school with the rest of us plebs! What a tragedy!
@@timonsolus I think it's a lack of responsibility and proper British work ethic! That's what these same people have been telling young people for as long as I can remember!
@@rodneyfungus8249 You undoubtedly have solid data demonstrating a reduction in avocado toast consumption in order to cover school fees. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to share it.
Edinburgh could be in trouble if fee paying parents withdraw - state schools are over capacity already & 50% of children are in private schools here!
If private schools wish to pass on the cost of VAT to their customers, that is their decision. The idea that a private school should be VAT exempt is absurd. They are offering a service for money.
They are run as a charity mate.
Not for long
Next it will be universities
@@rockydopeydoge6730nonsense. That is a loophole that needs closing. We are subsidising the rich as taxpayers. Most private school accounts are extremely healthy.
@@bobalopadus8901 we pay tax already which is spent on state schools which a service we don’t use.
This is a lost cause no one cares about the woes of those that send their kids to private schools.
Tax payers should not be subsidising private schools they are not charities.
Yes they should. Sending their children to private schools helps the taxpayer because they are not taking up a state school place together with its costs.
Lots of private schools are charities. Eton springs to mind. There are others.
Private schools are a family that state schools certainly aren't but it's horses for courses
@@rodneyfungus8249 Not paying VAT on their school fees burdens either the taxpayer or state schools. The government will either collect the money elsewhere or reduce spending on state schools They should give me VAT free gym subscriptions. By keeping myself fit and healthy, I'm saving the NHS money on drugs and not taking up a hospital bed.
Wonder if you will be saying that when the pupils transfer to state schools meaning less money for the state sector per pupil
So what? I am fed up with subsidising rich people to send their kids to posh schools. It's wrong in principles, charities my ar%e.
It’s the other way round. People pay for education pay taxes to subsidise the state schools on top of that, they don’t use this service and pay out of their own pockets for education therefore supporting the 94 percent of the population’s education.
@@alien4422 it’s ok. I certainly agree, this is nonsense, if they are complaining about privilege they should first look into the royal family and scrutinise it down to private schools.
@@kemalistdevrimturkaydnlanm168 No it is most certainly not. You pay nothing for State Education but get massive breaks for VAT and Charity exemptions. Charity means these schools don't pay 25% minimum on income. Therefore actually as the average fees are £15k at an average day school, we are paying you £2250 + £3000 = £5550 on those figures off your child's fees. That pales into insignificance on the amounts paid per pupil in state school - £145 per pupil in primary schools;; £276 per pupil in secondary schools. No wonder private schools have maximum class sizes of 12 or at least one third of state classes.
@@ScruffyTubbles I pay tax, income and council tax and all other taxes.
@@ScruffyTubbles I am sorry but you are out of your mind. Please get some mental help. “ yea you pay my school fees 😂😂😂I actually pay the fees from my handout benefits 😂😂, the government pumps money into our schools, yea you pay out fees”
Socialism the politics of envy
Toryism: the politics of terror?
They have received unfair tax breaks for years. How it that fair on other business or the public, when few benefit?It doesn't improve the education system.
Toryism, a welfare state for the rich.
@@paulthomas8262 The reason they got no VAT is that education was given charitable status by the law. Politicians thought education a public good.
@alanrobertson9790 but it failed to improve the education system because it represents less than 6% of the school population.
Could not give a SINGLE toss. 95% of people are "forced" to put their children in state schools. Private education is a luxury and should be taxed as such.
Good to see your first priority is the welfare of children and their education...
Yes, more funding into the public schools where 95% of all children need to go, not tax breaks for the elite 5%.
If it's bad for children to go to public school giving a minority access to better education isn't going to fix it.
This is very typical of the attitude you see and hear from the bitter, spiteful left. Why are you like this?
What you're arguing for is more pressure on the state education system, removal of bursaries and free places for pupils from state schools, removal of places which the private system provide for children who are struggling in the state system, removal of free use of private school facilities.
But hey, as long as standards are lowered for everybody, you'll be happy.
Oh, by the way, house prices near the better performing schools will rise as well, so well done you arguing in defence of this.
If more people are made to use statute schools, then just maybe we will get a better state education system. Propaganda here by The Times from people with a vested interest.
@anthonyseye There are good state schools, if you are in a decent area. But property prices in those areas are draconian.
The state schools are failing with what they got already, how bad will it be if this stupidity is passed?
@@nickgood8166 Yes of course there are. I'm fortunate enough to be in one of those areas and my children benifited from that. There is also a large public school here and it is still clear to see the growing golf between the two. From resources and facilities to coverage of events and achievements the gap is growing.
His arguments seem entirely reasonable to me. There are simple ways we could modify this policy to put tax on elite private schools, but avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Well, it's not really propaganda is it? It's just someone giving their view (one I don't agree with, I should add). Someone making an argument you don't agree with isn't propaganda. I think you might be confused about the meaning of the word. Take a breath and just focus on your rational argument, not on the silly conspiracy stuff.
And who pays for State Schools? The tax payer! Ergo we must be allowed to choose!
@@nikkihamilton4374 Tax payers also contribute to private schools, private medicine and private education. Where do you think your teachers, doctors and lecturers go to be trained?
@@nikkihamilton4374 We also pay for private education and suffer for the detrimental effect it has on our society
It's always struck me as odd that politicians of all stripes visit Finland to see Europe's best example of an education system. What they willfully ignore is that Finland has no independent school sector.... I don't see it ever happening here in my lifetime, but eradicating UK independent sector would ultimately create a better state system.
Finland education culture sounds fairer/better, teachers well respected etc, yes - good comment.
Finland has private schools. Check out Ressun lukio, the International School of Helsinki and Helsinki European School.
@@RobinDS-m1g Finland has private schools. Check out Ressun lukio, the International School of Helsinki and Helsinki European School.
Finland has not banned private schools.
Finland as a population of only 5 million, why would Finland need independent schools if their government can easily fund the school system with the best utilities?
Christ, are you really still going on about this? If you want to buy your child privilege you have to pay the same VAT on it as I do for my life's luxuries.
If the wealthy and influential had to send their children to the same schools as eveyone else (which they won't) they would make sure state education was properly funded.
This is exactly what happened in European countries that don't have private schools or got rid of them, forcing wealthy kids into state schools. The wealthy parents drove up standards in the state schools with their constant complaints, so all school kids benefit in the end from better schools. Wealthy parents would send their kids to the local school, as they live in wealthy areas with other wealthy people.
@@smj6710 Yep, 100% agree. I spent 20 years in state education whilst living a few hundred yards from enormous private schools. We occasionally had girls from the convent who got chucked out by the nuns!
Whilst the powerful and influential can bail out they will never be interested in making things better. The phrase 'skin in the game' comes to mind.
The wealthy and influential won't be affected by the VAT. It will only affect the people who struggle to afford it, and they are by no means influencial or wealthy.
The sum don't add up, what's the cost of recruiting and training these teachers? factor in the costs of absorbing the influx of children transferring in to the state system and the paltry sums of revenue raised from this pernicious politics of envy spiteful policy and the figures don't stack up.
Which families on "below average incomes" are paying £11,000 pa to a school? The average salary, before income tax in the UK is £29,600, so I don't believe anyone is paying more than a third of their salary to a private school.
bet they do
@@MattMcQueen1 I know a fair number of dual income 1 child families that aren't earning huge wages, but can pay that. They live modest lives in LCOL areas. I completely understand that it sounds a huge ask, IF you are living up to your income level, because you clearly can't just pull out £12K plus. But if you've planned to go private, and arranged your finances accordingly, it is achievable for those who aren't on huge incomes.
Clearly it’s Immoral! The government, which ever, should provide a tax credit for private school students, as the burden is reduced on the state! What’s the cost for one student for one year in the state system?
State place's are around £6 to 7K per year. It varies by locality
The only realistic way to really improve state schools is to allow them to charge fees. Most parents could afford to pay something.
Starmer upsetting both the rich and the working class.
As far as I'm concerned if you have the money to have your children educated privately , then your bank account is healthy. I for one, am not going to worry about such people.
I wonder why state schools aren't attractive to some parents...oh, I dunno, could it be 14 years of under investment from the previous govt added to huge tax breaks for private schools?
No it's the useless teachers over the past 40 years and the NUT taking caning out of the equation. Teachers now have no teeth and many have left. The sooner Unions are barred from education the better. These bloody unions are an anachronism.
Must be awful having to slum it with the likes of us plebs.
Yawn Sands school have raises their fees by over 3k since 2019 and havent lost customers. A 30% rise on their own terms. Just give the public the VAT and dont raise your fees
Fees are determined by costs and supply and demand. Curiously the school doesn't exist to provide tax revenue.
@@alanrobertson9790 ooo like a business then. Maybe they should also pay business rates then.
That's a 30% rise over 5 years though. Which is not surprising considering inflation.
@@alanrobertson9790 so it's a business then?
@@andybrice2711 indeed. We simply can no longer afford to give tax breaks to these institutions.
In precisely the same way everybody else is 'forced' to put their children in state schools.
These are the same people who have no problem living poor children without lunch and the argument is always about personal responsibility. If you can not afford privet school do not send your children to a privet school, perhaps if you stop drinking coffee in Starburst or avocado toast you might save enough...
Its obvious you did not benefit from education, you never learned to spell.
At a school with 1000 pupils if each parent contributes £30 per year that’s another teacher.
A whole lot of bellyaching by a small minority of people that already gets way too much air time.
Might the real reason actually be fairness and ideology, rather than the amount of money it raises?,
It's ideology imho. Just like Crossland in the 60s, Labour want to destroy excellence.
How is this fairness and ideology, this just means that an even smaller proportion of the population can afford private education now. The really rich will just pay the fees, those that are choosing to sacrifice everything to give their children a better education are the ones that will lose out. This further reduces the chances of working class people to improve their prospects and reduces social mobility. Labour have no interest in improving the quality of people’s lives, because it would actively reduce their voter base, in general, the more successful and wealthy you get, them more the likelihood is that you will vote conservative.
@@Andy-oc3ew unless one has a social or religious mission to do good, which was the intent of many foundations.
@@yousoufkirkwood6289 religion should never come in to politics, it is abhorrent in its nature and is possibly the first way imagined to hold back the common person.
Why hating on people who have worked hard to afford private education for their children. Insane comments
Fees at state schools is the only way to bring serious new money into education. Parents who can afford it should be charged modest fees.
Maybe if the Brexiteers had taken VAT off energy for heating your home like they suggested they would, you might have a leg to stand on.
But you're literally arguing that private school fees are more deserving of a tax exemption than people heating their homes - which is something that even people on benefits have to pay VAT on - not just those that can come up with £11K a year (per child) for their kid's school fees.
Oh... it isn't £11,000 a year, it's per term. It's a lot, lot, lot more even in the lower ranked schools. Places like Eton, Winchester and Ampleforth charge around £50,000 a year.
@@TalesOfWar Well then, parents who can fork out that kind of money can well afford tto pay tax on it.
Charge the wealthiest two thirds of parents at state schools £1000 per year = £2bn.
Love it! The Jealous Labour Party voters have actually managed to make private school more elitist. Extra 20% will not affect the real wealthy. In fact they will take the view (Real Wealthy parents) that the last of the Riff Raff (Poorest private school kids)have been banished to State sector. Expect a massive building boom at Private Schools and improvements. The VAT can now be reclaimed on all new capital expenditure, the money for new buildings will actually come from wealthy old boy school donors.
I expect Labour will actually lose money on this. All funded by Taxpayers!😂😂😂
Why on earth would you make something more expensive if it was actually taking the burden off the state system?🤦🏼♂️
Well done chaps. Keep it up.❤
Sent from my iPhone
Many struggle to give their children the best, the idiots who support this do so because they had a rotten state education.
Keir Starmer did it so his kids wouldn’t come into contact with white van man. This way they can now only mingle with the Jet Set at their private School. Remember he has nothing against private schools, just don’t want to run the risk of one of his kids falling in ❤ with white van man. He is a Tool (Maker)😂
Not a great example of joined up thinking from the Labour Party. Greece tried adding vat to private education fees and it failed.
What’s more likely to happen is parents who can’t afford the additional 20% will take better holidays abroad and or move into the catchment areas of the better performing state schools pushing up house prices in those areas.
At the moment HMRC states that vat is not changeable on education services when provided by an appropriate organisation ie a school or university. The legal structure of the organisation is irrelevant be it a charity, company or trust.
Same right wing rhetoric as always. Brought to you by the same people who argued the minimum wage would cost people's jobs - never happened. Or that cutting taxes for the rich would tricke down - never happened.
The theme that runs through it all is that you have to be nice to the wealthy and cruel to the poor, its not based on anything its just pure dogma.
1) If the minimum wage was set at a million pounds an hour, it would cost jobs. The argument is about how high above the market clearing rate to set the minimum wage. Since it’s not set far above the clearing rate, and there’s a large informal economy, it isn’t having a large effect.
2) When Denis Healey was Chancellor in the 1970s he raised the top rate of income tax to 98% (83% on earned income, plus a 15% surcharge on investment income). This did not raise a lot of money for the government. Within two years, the government had to ask the IMF for a loan. The IMF demanded spending cuts as part of the package.
3) If you read or listen to Fiona Millar (Alastair Campbell’s partner, and very much a driver of this policy), she’s clear she ultimately wants to ban home-schooling. Home schoolers are not especially rich; they include many people from religious minorities, such as Muslims. What Millar is mainly concerned about is controlling the curriculum, to control the thoughts that are put in young minds.
The claim that families that have below average incomes are the ones sending their children to private schools is blatantly absurd, that someone is allowed to make this claim without challenge is a terrible example of our journalism.
It’s curious that Labour want to get rid of private schools by making them more expensive, rather than making state schools so good that private schools become redundant…
@@stevenrix7024 They're using the money to make state schools better, and so long as private schools exist people will sent their children to them regardless of how good the state schools are. The quality of education isn't all that different between state and private, it's never even been about that either at least since the modern system of state schooling. It's about opening doors. It's networking. It's the ultimate exemplar of the old idiom of "it's not what you know, it's who you know". There's a reason the majority of the Prime Ministers in this country all went to Eton or Winchester, then university... both of them. They were literally created to teach boys how to rule a kingdom and later on, an Empire.
@@stevenrix7024Absolutely!
The people who will definitely lose out are those who would normally have scholarships or bursaries.
Qu, What happens when then private sector schools decline to provide their facilities to the public out of hours (ie., swimming, pools, games fields, etc) because they can raise more money by charging for them? I can see the private sector being much less co-operative - to every bodies detriment in the future. Whilst I can understand the case being made, I suggest taking into account the law of unintended consequences....... Labour may find they loose more than they gain here.
They always charge for them already.
Rich Parents would still pay or just send their kids to Switzerland.
Starmer's cabinet are just throwing random policies that mean nothing to us.
True. A serious policy would means test free state education. Most parents at state schools could easily afford to pay modest fees and that would make a real difference.
We are talking about 7% of the population. Education in the UK should be a level playing field, a child’s life chances should not depend on how much their parents pay to give them an advantage in university application, job opportunities and entry to the professions
@@robinmcewan8473 they already do. They give preference state school grads, poor kids , minorities etc over private school grads even if they are poor, minorities in many universities.
@@kemalistdevrimturkaydnlanm168 Too true and sad, Minorities are often praised in the lower working class because they get the job at hand done, whilst the wealthy do everything to villainise them
@@kemalistdevrimturkaydnlanm168 they do not, Oxford and Cambridge colleges have much less than 93% state school entrants. FGS! Education should be a level playing field, this was recognised in 1940 by the Butler Education Act but no government has had the guts to institute change.
@@robinmcewan8473 there are over 150 universities in this country. I did not attend either but I feel I did well considering my background. Hoverer 2 of my friends who comes from low income backgrounds, state educated one from Indian Muslim backgrounds attended Cambridge.
@@robinmcewan8473 So what percentage of Oxbridge students actually went to private school in 2023?
Well, in 2023, 28.2 per cent of Cambridge students are privately educated, leaving the other 71.8 per cent of students coming from a state school or grammar schools
State schools must have smaller class sizes and qualified teachers and ensure a first class education to every child! State schools should be run on the same standards as private schools to provide a fair chance for every child!
If you can't afford private-school children, you shouldn't have them.
😂
Idiotic comment. State school parents depend on taxpayers to fund their kids’ education, whereas private school parents pay for their own kids and not a burden on the state system. So many intellectually challenged people on here
Ideally there should be no private schools!
Poppycock, people should be able to choose where they want their children educated. If that is private or public, the key is to have options.
@@janemissmoo You are right!
@@Subtleknife12367 No, you are wrong. The rich game the system to give their offspring an unfair advantage
@@robinmcewan8473which is completely fair if you have the money to do so 😂. What next, will you get rid of business class on planes?
@@militantman that is a service, education should be a level playing field. The Germans shake their heads at our inequality in education. The Finish system, all state, out performs us in every way.
Imagine taxing education!
Drivel.
EU rules forbid taxing education, so Blair never taxed private education for that reason. But the UK isn’t in the EU anymore, thanks to the Tories - so Starmer has more ‘sovereignty’ to raise taxes. This is a ‘Brexit benefit’.
It's not 'education'. It's taxing an established business. Anything that's a private product should be taxed just like anything else.
Imagine a society where some of the citizens pay thousands of pounds each year to teach their children to read and write, while others have to trot down to a food bank to feed theirs. It appears that scrounging from the state is acceptable as long as it's the wealthy doing it.
@@timonsolus Why do you think Poland and Portugal rather than UK voters should decide on UK VAT policies?
I disagree with this VAT policy. But it was transparently in their manifesto they won an election on.
The people sitting on their wallets are middle class parents at state schools
Will cause many to go back to state schools, some to move overseas, some to home school and private schools to squeeze their costs. It also makes private schooling more exclusive, because you have to be that much richer to afford it.
Perhaps we should follow the Finland model, and close private schools. They have benefited from that, by bringing children from all backgrounds closer together.
My heart is bleeding for the children of wealthy benefit scroungers.
@@nickgood8166 they just need to cut down on their daily Starbucks and cancel Netflix
@@gio-oz8gf As opposed to dole bludgers like yourself?
Politicians need to come clean. If we want a better education system for all then we need to pay. People with substantial disposable income should be required to pay towards the education of their children.
Well we'll see wont we? Rather than the vague threats and bullish promises of the sky falling in (similar to what we had when the minimum wage was introduced), maybe these people will find a way to muddle on through with their private education. I guess these schools will just have to find new ways to keep revenue lower for the parents, maybe car boot fairs, charity drives, restructuring staff, hard work from governors and staff to save money. Like literally every state school in the country with far less resources over the last 14 years.
A lot of schools will probably just eat the fees given how egregiously huge many of them already are. I wonder how much of what they charge is just pure profit.
@TalesOfWar there are some private schools that have huge surpluses at the end of each year but the majority break-even or have a small surplus. This policy, while meaning we'll, is more likely to affect the smaller modest schools and will have no impact on the big boys like Eton and Harrow who it's directed at. Depending on how it's worded, there are likely to be loopholes that will be used to reduce how much VAT actually gets paid.
@@Damomasts Oh no! Anyway.
Reading the comments. My word the politics of envy is very evident. 🤣
Being successful isn't a crime peeps.
All this class war stuff is not about improving education for children. The obvious way to increase funding for state schools is to means test free places and charge most parents a modest fee.
Employee of private school thinks the private school's attendees shouldn't have to pay VAT... colour me shocked. 😂
Well, if it's going to be classed as a business, they can RECLAIM the VAT on stuff they need for said business....has Labour thought this through....?
I suggest the labour explanation was sourced from Dianne Abbot.!
Many independent schools are not actually for "the rich". Independent schools cost the state nothing. Force everyone to the state sector and the state sector will not cope. This policy will cost the state way more than it will bring in.
@@LordXbow Well, they do because they have tax exemptions, they employ state educated staff and avoid paying the full price for the service that they offer. Also, it distorts all the professions, making entry difficult or well nigh impossible. When interns from well off families can afford to work for next to nothing in expensive cities that excludes as much as 93% of the population, your honour.
Private school dad of two here: The vast majority of parents in my boys classes are not rich. They are normal people who forfeit holidays and new cars to give their children a better start in life.
Anyone who thinks this is a strategy that will balance positively is underestimating how many kids will move to state schools.
The good local state schools to me have stated they’ve seen radically increased applications.
I was educated privately. The vast majority of people sending their children to private schools can afford the extra couple of grand a semester this will cost them. If money is ‘tight’, either get a less highly spaced Range Rover or wait another six months to replace the existing one.
When most of these people supported the Tories as people reliant on public services were basically thrown to the wolves, sympathy for their minor inconvenience is hard to come by.
😂 I agree 👍
Oh the horror! Having to have your kids go to a school with poor people. 😮
Oh the horror parents being willing to pay something towards their children’s education.
@@MBReader410 you can pay, but the price will go up. If you can’t pay then you have to play the same game as all the “poor people”. If that is a problem then you need to pay to keep your kids away from “poor people” for the rest of their lives because I hate to break it to ya but some of the kids on the council estate I grew up on became doctors, bankers, lawyers and business owners.
Pay what you like, it seems to me that the price will include tax now.
@@arron620If parents at state schools paid even small fees then there would be money to reduce class sizes and improve schools.
@@MBReader410 they do. It’s called tax. Want the premium product? Now you have to pay for it and the extra tax that goes with it. Same if you want any other premium service.
As I expected analysis from the government Is all about what it will cost the state and what it will raise! Nothing said for the poor children being ripped from their school, their friends and the education they've been working towards, to be dumped into government run schools already too crowded to provide the kind of service that children of all ages deserve! It's a travesty and it's sickening!
Effectively the VAT payment discriminates against private school education!
Exactly. And it's a good thing. Private education is an attempt to buy privilege and that's wrong at every level. Privilege should be earned not bought.
Parents should be forced to use state education. Private schools should be banned. All children should be able to get a good standard of education. People should not be able to buy privilege.
Do you miss the Soviet Union?
@@jimthompson9370 you mean the one where privilege was routinely bought by the state oligarchs?
Bet you wanted everyone to be forced to have the “Safe and effective” during COVID didn’t you, North Korea is looking for people like you.
So you want to ban home-schooling?
@@jimthompson9370 Actually, Lenin’s views on education would be considered right wing by people like our poster. Lenin pointed out that Marx’s “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” did not assume that people had equal abilities or needs. He advocated for early streaming out of children with exceptional abilities, such as maths and science geniuses, athletes, chess pros, the musically gifted, and so on. The USSR was a vile place in many respects, but it probably over-performed in certain areas because of its aggressively meritocratic school system. Lenin’s wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya, was a big advocate for accessible education for all, adult literacy programmes etc. It’s easy to mis-read her as an advocate for Fiona Millar-type policies. That’s wrong. Millar’s views on education are closer to those of the government of Cambodia from 1975 to 1979.
It may be more dramatic than this as private schools generally have smaller classes that suit a lot of pupils who are able to cope in the smaller environment, and hence the lower income families see this benefit and sacrifice to fud this, however in a larger and more rowdy environment, would suffer and need additional external support services that the state schools struggle to provide, which was the original reason for choosing the private education route for the children. Have you tried getting learning assessments and support resources recently in a state school....?
The private schools are there to allow privileged people to send their children to have privilege. OK some allow a few pupils in whose parents cannot afford fees, but the system is elitist.
And it will become more elitist now. Do you actually think the likes of Eton etc are going to close ? 😂 They are a global brand, with waiting lists. This is going to destroy the small schools which charge a fraction of the famous ones. I know parents whose kids were appallingly treated in State Schools, but thrived in small classes, with the attention they needed. Parents aren't all millionaires, that's just a divide and rule stereotype. Plenty of families live very frugally, and can just about manage to pay.
Just means-test it - I don't know why people don't mention this. Let the very wealthy shoulder the cost of the less well off - they make up the shortfall the VAT will create. Then everybody's happy.
Means test free state education. That would actually make a difference.
Private schools get c.£700 million in tax breaks. But each child’s place in the state sector costs c.£5,500 a year. 600,000 private school kids therefore save the state £3.3Billion. Subtract tax concessions and private schools are supporting state education £2.6Bn. But I went to a private school so I can work this out for myself - thanks Mum and Dad.
They produce people like yourself that will tie themselves in knots trying to justify charity status to a for profit company. I guess a state school with its curriculum forcing me to do some basic business studies is paying off. Thank Mum! RIP Dad.
@@kevinsmarts9953 Maybe we need a grammar school person to put us right on this. Maybe we're both right.
@@robertsmuggles6871 Perhaps someone at one of those academies could help?
Maybe we're both wrong. We'll see soon enough.
How about we knock off VAT on the consumable goods bought by oridinary people? They pay a larger proportion of their income on VAT than better-off people.
Completely fails to address how the independent school system feeds into the failures in the state education system in the first place, and noted that the presenter says all his friends who send their offspring to private schools are discussing how best to avoid paying their taxes. Perhaps if they paid their taxes state schooling would be in a better place to educate their progeny. Social parasitism
@@moshki80 there are 650k pupils privately educated, their parents already paying taxes for state education, also pay for kids who are accepted at non fee paid levels as the private schools are charitable institutions. In our school we accepted many kids from Ukraine, local kids with their parents divorced, children of clergy etc and raised money to take care of them, raised money to buy schools buses etc. Don’t think most of these kids parents rich, they are every day people, we have careers, electrician, teacher kids etc. The money generated by taxing will affect most of these parents. Think about the influx of kids joining already full state schools.
This is good news, a local primary school is closing so more children in the state school system will help.
The fees they paid the Private Primary if it was will be very useful, at 50 times (ish) the normal direct grant (£8k to £157).
If parents of private school pupils were truly committed to this education system, they would surely be prepared to pay this tax to ensure their kids remained in it? To be able to pay this money every year, they are relatively rich and are able to pay the additional 20% on an amount that most families in the UK would consider an unaffordable extravagance.
Then we should not pay the percentage of the tax we pay for the education of 95 percent of kids who attends state schools. You are right for us education is the best gift we can give to a child we decided to bring to fast changing world, therefore we will do anything and everything, as if we don’t already like sacrificing individual needs to make sure our kids ready for ai world.
@@kemalistdevrimturkaydnlanm168 Your logic escapes me. Public education is for the public good, the same as a public health service. Private education benefits the lucky, wealthy few. I'm not saying it should be banned but it should be taxed like any other unnecessary expenditure such as private healthcare - unnecessary because a public alternative exists. Your choice - pay your fair tax.
@@kemalistdevrimturkaydnlanm168 The tax system doesn't really work like that, tax is collected and it's a political choice as to how much gets spent on each public service.
@@barryboom717 not really , as a tax payer I get a letter each year which explains how much of my tax spent on which services. Do you not get the same letter? I don’t keep these letters but I am sure it’s an open knowledge anyone can find out.
@@Stevieboy130664 it seems you didn’t listen to the head teacher whom explained the percentage of the families who prefer to pay for various reasons for education, the very rich are not affected anyway, most families who pay for education not rich, they just sacrifice on personal choices to provide the needed education for their kids. My daughter graduated from a private school which also accepted no fee paying kids all the time, each year as they have charitable status. We paid for their tuition, food, uniforms etc. Every year we also used our own money to raise money for the school at least 5 times as the schools struggle. I think this policy is nonsense as the privileged rules the country ie non elected royal family, non elected lords, non tax payer and limitless profits making companies, every 10 years tax payer saved banks, and the biggest mockery of all the tax free islands this country runs . Should you not scrutinise from the top? Instead of low and middle income families who pay taxes for education, pay money for their children’s education separately?
Thats a shame, a taste of the real world is long overdue
Are yes, the warped view of the left, I cant aspire to their level so they must be dragged down to mine. Pathetic.
They will have to cancel Netflix and eat less avocado on toast
Why should the wealthy suffer? It's so unfair!
Very unfortunate, no family should be made to cancel Netflix and eat less avocado on toast by incompetent tax-hogging governments.
@@captainnice1881 asking the wealthy to pay more isn't just cruel - it's inhuman
@@frankcarter6427 Hear Hear
Everyone is talking about the 'lifestyle choice' and 'oh dear what a pity never mind' and to a point I agree.
But there will be redundancies, the people made redundant wont be rich, wont be wealthy, they'll be the maintenance crews that look after what are in a lot of cases heritage buildings, they'll be the grounds staff that keep the grounds looking great, cleaners, cooks a few teachers. Then there are the local businesses that will suffer should a school in it's area close, local suppliers and the like. It's really not all about the rich.
Another thing about this is that it wont affect schools like Eton, Westminster, Marlborough the places the uber rich send their kids, the sort of schools that produce Tory MP's. In short, it wont stop the likes of Johnson or Sunak being PM ever again.
Stop using taxpayers' money to subsidise private sector education.
Support the 94% not the 6%.
Not a penny is handed over in subsidy. What are you talking about?
@@nighttrain1236. We all pay VAT that’s what we’re talking about.
@@nighttrain1236
The VAT these scrounging welfare guzzlers are avoiding is literally a subsidy.
@@nighttrain1236 Not paying VAT on a service is a subsidy; what are you talking about? Were you publicly educated? If yes, then your parents should be asking for a refund.
@@californiadreamin8423 The 94% pay VAT on their state education share of spending?
The Labour government wouldn't get away with putting the price of food up to fill their 'black hole', so how can they get away with putting school fees up. How many of those MP's votting for 'higher school fees', have been sent to, or sent their children in the past for private education?
Thank goodness I’m not being asked to subsidise the education of the rich. If they want private schooling then go ahead; Just don’t ask poorer people in society to pay for it.
You arent, it is the other way around. Also, the first thing that will be cut is scholarships, the only people hurt here are the poorer parents who have aspired to send their child to private school.
@@Subtleknife12367 of course I am. If someone does not pay their way then everyone else has to pay more. It’s really not hard to understand. Honest.
Scholarship? We shouldn’t be running our education system of such an outdated way. With Some people getting favoured over others. All should have good education available to them.
These people will find a way to pay fees, if they believe it gives their children a leg up over the peasants! You watch. Very few will drop out. They will beg, borrow or steal the money.
A private education is a luxury and therefore attracts VAT.
Are books a luxury? You can argue it either way. We zero rate them because we want to encourage reading.
@@georgesdelatour No books are educational materials and accessible for everyone.
@@ScruffyTubbles A First Edition of Cervantes' Don Quixote typically sells for around $1 million.
@@georgesdelatour That's optional to purchase to increase in value - though why IO don't know - to brag? Cervantes would have wanted his stuff read by everyone. Henry VI did not want Eton to benefit everyone.
@@georgesdelatour But Republicans in the US want books burnt, indicating they are opposed to education.
These people are already overpaying because they fund a public school place they don't use. For different reasons I'm planing to leave the UK because as poor as the previous government was, they didn't act out of spite against those trying to do their best. Their 22% pay offer to doctors will be the start of public sector strikes from others wanting the same.
Just cut back on Starbucks and avocado toast. We're all in it together
I cannot afford to pay for the VAT. I want to ask the Labour Party how my children can move from an independent school to a state school. All the schools in my area have no available spaces!😢😢😢
My heart bleeds
I’m a carpenter and was struggling to put my youngest through private school but with recent private school fee rises and now the vat…well, it’s just out of reach. So much for social mobility!
The Labour Party discontinued the Bursaries for Bright Children to go to Private Schools - this would help where Grammar Schools have been discontinued in favour of Enormous Comprehensive Schools that fail children in a major way. Too large Too impersonal and children sometimes need to travel long distances to reach them. So not Eco friendly.
Are you saying everyone has a local private school on their doorstep?
Oh no the poor rich people who are effectively paying thier children into arts and politics while closing the door on poor people, how will they survive
I'm happy for more rich (you are if you're sending your kids private, shut up) parents having skin in the game of state schools
Wonders how the teachers will cope with the high performers incoming and the expectations of their parents !
So you think that here are no high performers in he system. In fact there are more high performers in state schools tthan in private schools.
This is nonsense. Tax the rich... tax them to oblivion
“5% is way too small / be grateful I don’t take it all”. “Taxman” by The Beatles, when the top tax rate was 95%.
They already do . Now, to make things even, force people who are able to work to leave their sofas, pull their finger out and start producing and paying taxes! Then we will have more money for state sponsored quality education
I love the crocodile tears around this policy.
“Is there some support for “low income” families” lol define low income ?
Why aren’t these parents being patronised with suggest like, have you thought of using supermarket own brand products ? Or get a better paying job, or perhaps you should have thought of this before having children you can’t afford, etc
This is what the rest of us are told
That's the point. Next the UK govt will come for homeschooling.
We can only hope.
@@joekws I forgot, brits love tyranny.
They've already started coming for home schooling. They have announced a bill for a compulsory register.
Oooh, it's a conspiracy! And vaccines cause autism, etc, etc. Try not to get too imaginative, just focus on the evidence in front of you, what's actually happening and the rationale behind it. Be rational. It's a good way to live. It's very relaxing.
@@jhoneyb The register is to try and help kids who are in bad situations, so we can keep track, and look where problems and support can be identified. Not everything's a conspiracy you know!
State schools can claim back VAT on goods and services so why is it unfair for private schools to do the same. If private schools are forced to charge VAT the government will be forced to build more schools and employ more teachers thus cancelling any financial benefit.
Education should be a level playing field
So for NOT using the state's resources, you now get punished on top? Very strange.
Private schools receive a subsidy from the public purse through their charitable status to the extent of three times (per pupil) that of state schools, so if the VAT change means more pupils move from private schools to state schools the state will actually have more resources.
Use the states resources then.
@@matthewn1805Average cost per child for state school is £7000 per year. Average private school is £16000 a year. That's £3200 extra a year they need to pay.
So not only are the parents of private school children paying into the state system and NOT using it, they are also now being punished for it. Not to mention, wealthier parents will obviously be paying far more into the state school system in their taxes as it is.
This doesn't hurt the super rich or influencial people. It hurts people who genuinely struggle to afford school fees, and these are people who are making huge compromises to afford it.
This is exactly what I've been suggesting. An ~£8,000 tax-free allowance on private school fees. That taxes the elite schools, but it keeps the affordable ones accessible.
@@andybrice2711 this policy is not about generating income for the government, it’s about appeasing their core electorate
They are not charities they are private companies the quicker labour sort out our tax system which has always favoured the rich the better there is billions and billions of avoidance tax by very rich people not being paid off shore trusts etc .
How does the tax system favour the rich? They pay most of the taxes. Excel spreadsheet available from HMRC shows this.
@@alanrobertson9790 It favours them in that they can afford to pay so much more but use loopholes and avoidance schemes to pay very little. When you have people with billions of pounds of money in the same country where people are hospitalized due to mal-norishment there is a clear problem and that is the current state of the UK. It would not take much to cut down on the Bugattis slightly and have enough food for those in need.
@@alanrobertson9790 Most in terms of sums paid, or most in terms of proportion of their income?
@@chrispalmer7893 Both.
@@kevinsmarts9953 HMRC statistics suggest otherwise but admittedly billionaires not included. As to malnourishment there is a simpler solution. In 2022, approximately 390 million adults aged 18 years and older worldwide were underweight, while 2.5 billion were overweight, including 890 million who were living with obesity. Among children and adolescents aged 5-19 years, 390 million were overweight, including 160 million who were living with obesity.
Generally though I think people are responsible for themselves, not other people.
I would abolish private schools so that ALL children get a great education and equality of opportunity to do well in life. This would enable the social classes to mix so there is greater understanding between them. The problem with the last Tory government was that they were out-of-touch with real people of all classes and did not understand or empathise with the life challenges of the many. This meant that challenges were not tackled to improve wider society.
Public school educated journalists and politicians constantly complaining about the private school tax, thinking it's a negative for Labour, so out of touch they don't realise its a huge plus for Labour with the general public.
I think you’re right that most voters probably like the class-war aspect of Labour’s policy. That’s why I think the policy is cynical. It’s a sop to a certain kind of low-information lefty headbanger that Starmer needs to keep onboard. It won’t raise a lot of money, and it will do nothing to deal with the fact that house prices in the catchment areas of “good” state schools are typically 30% higher than they would be otherwise. That’s the most glaring iniquity in education.
All they have done is increase the gulf between the people who are too poor to pay for private education and those who can afford it, sod those working class people who would sacrifice everything to give their children the best opportunity to improve their lot.
No No No. How many Libor MPs send or have sent their little darlings to Private Schools. Hypocrites.
@@robertadams1054 Shami Chakrabarti, Valerie Vaz, Diane Abbott. Emily Thornberry has sent hers to state schools which are selective.
This was utterly predictable to all but bigoted Labour idealogues...
I'm very happy to acknowledge it was predictable - I don't have a single tear for the tax dodgers complaining about their loss of ability to dodge VAT on what they purchase.
@@andrewcavenagh9016 What … ? Does this make any sense? Try again.
@@robinmcewan8473 To the mentally challenged like you, obviously not.
The vindictive imposition of VAT on private sector school fees is nothing more than a class war driven attack on those who choose to make sacrifices to educate their children privately (thereby saving the State substantial sums of money). The net impact of this disgraceful imposition will be to drive pupils out of private and into State education, thus wrecking the education of the affected pupils, causing large numbers of private schools to close, wide-spread redundancies, the State sector to be overwhelmed with additional pupils, a major decrease in assisted school places for the less well off and a net negative impact on both quality of education and State finances. The future of our country depends on more and better education. It is ludicrous to levy tax on education.
That is certainly one possible outcome and what I thought might happen when I first heard about VAT being added to fees. However, considering the cost will be in the region of a few hundred extra per month, it is more likely that parents will be able to afford it. They are already finding the two grand a month so a bit more will be manageable. The VAT will definitely affect some families but not the majority and some schools that are already struggling may close but most will be fine. The consequences will not be anything like you have described simply because the increase is not going to be large enough. Larger families may find it harder but if someone can already afford, say 3 sets of fees (45-60k per year), then they'll be able to afford another 9k.
@@Damomastsu r nuts, where does that extrapolate come from? That’d be another £18k wed have to make out of thin air ( we are taxed at nearly half of our hard earned money)
@jrr3613 45k at 20% is 9k. Everyone else pays VAT on the goods and services they pay for with money they've already been taxed on, it's hard to argue why fees should be different.
If it comes in at a flat rate, it's a good policy to clear out that 15% of pupils from the sixth wedge (bottom half of the income distribution, 7:55). The Bullingdon Club will hold a grand banquet when this is recommended to the House.