Private schools, times a changing?

[M1AGM]

DonkeyApple said:

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

Most are having their kids funded by grand parents or trust funds or assets or second homes, or being the MD of Daddy’s business.

Stats please, otherwise that could be mistaken for chippy Valleys stuff.

To be fair, I know of several examples of all of those at our school. The minority are paying fees themselves out of post tax income like myself.

Maybe I’m an outlier, but I send my kids to private school so they can get a decent rounded education in order to be able to choose what they want to do in life that will give them the most happiness. If they want to be a CEO of a FTSE100 or a shelf stacker in Tesco, as long as they are happy with that and it was their educated choice, its fine by me.

[Leithen]

Regardless of the source of private school fee income, it is overwhelmingly from taxed income. The savings to the state from private education is in the multiple billions. Adding VAT to a subsection of education charges simply adds to the tax take from those meeting private education costs and adds to the overall subsidy of the state by such individuals.

A triple whammy packaged and sold as some attempt to achieve equality. It will do nothing of the sort of course. But if you want to believe that, keep telling yourself that it does.

[Wombat3]

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

Wombat3 said:

So what?

Its still the case that resources are not infinite for most people and who's business is it how they (grandparents etc) choose to spend their money anyway?

The one thing they all have in common is that they see the value in it.

So what?


You can’t possibly be serious with that comment!

So what? If your daddy is paying for it, or a trust fund is paying for it, you can fking afford the VAT.

If not, as stated you have my sympathies. Perhaps that’s the answer, VAT on those kids funded outside of net income. Seems fair.

Absolutely serious.

On what basis do you assume that if the grandparents are the feepayers they can automatically afford an additional 20% ?

Its assumptive & simplistic nonsense.

It doesn't matter who is paying the fees, an additional 20% is an additional 20%.

Once again though, you seem to have a huge issue with other people's wealth. You seem to see an ability to afford something as "unfair" just because other people cant.

Your enthusiasm for this tax appears to have much more to do with taking money off "rich people" as anything else. It does't really seem to matter what the actual results of it are just as long as rich bds pay more,

Have I got that right now?

I wonder, do you apply this to everything you see when you step outside your front door? If so you should maybe stop worrying about what other people are doing & get on with your own thing. It'd be more productive and less stressful!

[borcy]

Wombat3 said:

I wonder, do you apply this to everything you see when you step outside your front door? If so you should maybe stop worrying about what other people are doing & get on with your own thing. It'd be more productive and less stressful!

I guess it's the nature of PH.

However in stopping worrying about other people, does that include govs in waiting and their policies ?

[Wombat3]

borcy said:

Wombat3 said:

I wonder, do you apply this to everything you see when you step outside your front door? If so you should maybe stop worrying about what other people are doing & get on with your own thing. It'd be more productive and less stressful!

I guess it's the nature of PH.

However in stopping worrying about other people, does that include govs in waiting and their policies ?

Its a fair question.

The real issue at hand is whether this ill thought out stupidity is indicative of what else they might cook up.

Lets hope not.

[borcy]

Wombat3 said:

borcy said:

Wombat3 said:

I wonder, do you apply this to everything you see when you step outside your front door? If so you should maybe stop worrying about what other people are doing & get on with your own thing. It'd be more productive and less stressful!

I guess it's the nature of PH.

However in stopping worrying about other people, does that include govs in waiting and their policies ?

Its a fair question.

The real issue at hand is whether this ill thought out stupidity is indicative of what else they might cook up.

Lets hope not.

I wouldn't worry too much yet, there's a lot of water to go under the bridge.

Many a gov promised x and it never happened or did but looked quite different.

Even if it did, for all the reports no one has a crystal ball. What might happen might well be different to what people think.

[Wombat3]

borcy said:

Wombat3 said:

borcy said:

Wombat3 said:

I wonder, do you apply this to everything you see when you step outside your front door? If so you should maybe stop worrying about what other people are doing & get on with your own thing. It'd be more productive and less stressful!

I guess it's the nature of PH.

However in stopping worrying about other people, does that include govs in waiting and their policies ?

Its a fair question.

The real issue at hand is whether this ill thought out stupidity is indicative of what else they might cook up.

Lets hope not.

I wouldn't worry too much yet, there's a lot of water to go under the bridge.

Many a gov promised x and it never happened or did but looked quite different.

Even if it did, for all the reports no one has a crystal ball. What might happen might well be different to what people think.

All true, however, one can only look at the last time with the likes of the misuse of PFI , the raid on pension funds and the assorted other fkwittery that went on.

The problem with this one is also how little thought evidently went into announcing it without really understanding the impact. Or maybe they just don't care what the impacts are because its useful "red meat"? (neither is good!)

Its already moving the dial in an irreversible way and they are not even in government yet.

Absolute fkwits, the lot of them.

[borcy]

Wombat3 said:

All true, however, one can only look at the last time with the likes of the misuse of PFI , the raid on pension funds and the assorted other fkwittery that went on.

The problem with this one is also how little thought evidently went into announcing it without really understanding the impact. Or maybe they just don't care what the impacts are because its useful "red meat"? (neither is good!)

Its already moving the dial in an irreversible way and they are not even in government yet.

Absolute fkwits, the lot of them.

They might well not be bothered or they think there will be issues but the juice is worth the squeeze. Nearly all policies are winners and losers. Most gov don't worry about those outside their circle too much, (OT) this gov had many examples.

Most to be impacted by this will in various provincial towns in the south. SKS is hardly likely to get an irate phone call from the Surrey Labour Association.

I doubt very many Labour supporters will know much about it, the general public close to zero.

[Dynion Araf Uchaf]

Wombat3 said:

Absolutely serious.

On what basis do you assume that if the grandparents are the feepayers they can automatically afford an additional 20% ?

Its assumptive & simplistic nonsense.

It doesn't matter who is paying the fees, an additional 20% is an additional 20%.

Once again though, you seem to have a huge issue with other people's wealth. You seem to see an ability to afford something as "unfair" just because other people cant.

Your enthusiasm for this tax appears to have much more to do with taking money off "rich people" as anything else. It does't really seem to matter what the actual results of it are just as long as rich bds pay more,

Have I got that right now?

I wonder, do you apply this to everything you see when you step outside your front door? If so you should maybe stop worrying about what other people are doing & get on with your own thing. It'd be more productive and less stressful!

It’s no more assumptive non sense than your assumptions about me being jealous of rich bds.

You’re not as rich as you think if you are still taking handouts from the bank of mum and dad as a fully fledged adult. It’s embarrassing. Yeh you have a nice house, and car and a good job but still you take your parents legacy because you can’t or won’t fund your kids private education and god forbid you choose a state school.

And it’s very very likely that the good fortune you find yourself in is due to your family wealth and contacts. Do you think you’d be in your position if your parents were social workers?


Very very few grandparents are in the position to fund school fees for multiple grand children. Because they won’t be doing to just for your kids. But for your brother and /or sisters kids. We could be talking 6 or 7 grandchildren with ease. All costing 15k per term or year if it’s a no mark private school. That’s some serious financial clout.

You should be paying some fking tax on that wealth if you are choosing to spend it on a discretionary purchase. It’s far better for society if you and others do.

And I am not a socialist, far from it, but there are some things that need to change and a tax on wealth is defo one of them.

[okgo]

Angry man.

[Dynion Araf Uchaf]

okgo said:

Angry man.

Cleared I’ve touched a nerve of yours.

[okgo]

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

Cleared I’ve touched a nerve of yours.

Not at all, I just think it’s amusing how worked up you’ve got about this and how you’ve had to call the blokes life embarrassing to get your message over. Bizarre.

[Dynion Araf Uchaf]

okgo said:

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

Cleared I’ve touched a nerve of yours.

Not at all, I just think it’s amusing how worked up you’ve got about this and how you’ve had to call the blokes life embarrassing to get your message over. Bizarre.

I’d suggest that there’s some recognition there are to your situation.

So tell me, are your kids in private school and are you funding that entirely by yourself using only net income?

[richhead]

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

I did say that some would transfer not all.

I have been to both Abingdon Boys and Pangbourne.
They looked quite impressive

Private school is more than the results, it’s the confidence, it’ll give a child. Essentially the message is ‘it is out there for you go and get it’ as opposed to a state school message of ‘ conform and don’t rock the boat ‘

You pro private education wallahs really do live in cloud cuckoo land with your privately uneducated utterly naisve tropes about feral kids impacting Tabitha’s chances.

It’s just lazy and ignorant, but mostly selfish.

And here’s why.

For those funding a private education out of post tax income you have my sympathy’s. Not cheap and you’ve got to be very determined to make that happen..

But they are the rarest form of parent

Most are having their kids funded by grand parents or trust funds or assets or second homes, or being the MD of Daddy’s business.

If VAT isn’t added then that wealth you are sitting on stays in your family. You won’t need to dip deeper into the trust fund, But if it’s taxed everyone gets a slice as you have to spend it to pay for the privilege of a private education.

Your force to give back to society. That’s a good thing.

never heard such rubbish, as to giving to society, how about the saving the country makes by you not sending your kids to a state school, and funding it yourself,

[okgo]

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

I’d suggest that there’s some recognition there are to your situation.

So tell me, are your kids in private school and are you funding that entirely by yourself using only net income?

They have been in private nursery and will be entering private school this year at reception. And yes.

So no, no nerve hit, just think it’s a bizarre way to try and make your point.

[Dynion Araf Uchaf]

richhead said:

never heard such rubbish, as to giving to society, how about the saving the country makes by you not sending your kids to a state school, and funding it yourself,

There’s absolutely no chance that you have chosen to privately educate your children as a service to society by saving the tax payer some money. That thought never entered your head until you needed to justify your decisons.

And as for state schools being stretched to crises point with the influx of private kids, no chance.

Motivated kids don’t cause problems (their parents midgut however) and equally as likely the parents might fund pta events more…. Enthusiastically.
Also more motivated kids dilutes the problem ones and the current staff vacancies for teacher will be filled by the mass exodus from private education of teachers

You could also argue that increasing the funding to state schools when there are more bright and motivated kids attending is actually a sensible investment. It can be funded from taxing those trust funds you are all addicted to.

[Talksteer]

okgo said:

It’ll just make the problem worse. More kids to find space for and an even more elite system than the one that existed already.

It’s just going to become even more ‘pay to play’ - the school my son is heading to gives out £5m a year to help with fees for smart children that can’t afford it, and pays for the entirety of over 100 kids fees - it would be fairly unlikely that will continue at the same scale.

1: It won't result in that many people going back into the state system as the average private secondary school gets 9k more than the average state school. Ergo they don't have to raise fees very much or at all to still have substantially better facilities and services than a state school. Given that the primary advantage of private school is keeping the riff raff out the offer is basically the same.

2: At industry level 7% of students get a bursary, of which 1% get full fees. However this isn't exactly altruistic, they aren't taking SENs children or thieving Vinny. Instead they take the most gifted sportsmen and academics from the local state sector, having clever class mates being part of the offer to the fee payers. It also lets parents feel a bit less selfish.

[richhead]

Dynion Araf Uchaf said:

richhead said:

never heard such rubbish, as to giving to society, how about the saving the country makes by you not sending your kids to a state school, and funding it yourself,

There’s absolutely no chance that you have chosen to privately educate your children as a service to society by saving the tax payer some money. That thought never entered your head until you needed to justify your decisons.

And as for state schools being stretched to crises point with the influx of private kids, no chance.

Motivated kids don’t cause problems (their parents midgut however) and equally as likely the parents might fund pta events more…. Enthusiastically.
Also more motivated kids dilutes the problem ones and the current staff vacancies for teacher will be filled by the mass exodus from private education of teachers

You could also argue that increasing the funding to state schools when there are more bright and motivated kids attending is actually a sensible investment. It can be funded from taxing those trust funds you are all addicted to.

what makes you think i have a trust fund, ive made my own money. and i loath to give more of it to a feckless government to waste. they get plenty already, they just have a very short term way of looking at things, so it inevitably gets wasted, dont blame wealthy people, blame the idiots in charge. How much was wasted on hs2 for example, maybe that could have gone to education.
and yes the motivation for sending kids to private schools isnt saving the state system money, it is however a benefit to others. that cant be denied.
yes state schools should have more money, so should alot of things, but blaming parents who opt out and go private is abit like blaming those that use private healthcare for the state of the nhs. loony thinking.
anywhere you live in the world having money helps, thats life,

[PhilkSVR]

Having money simply creates choice and in my view that should be respected.

[richhead]

PhilkSVR said:

Having money simply creates choice and in my view that should be respected.

absolutely