Election Year or Fear!

[Andy_Faber]

I think the answer may well be somewhere between "it's my money and I'll spend it anyway I like" and "what's wrong in wanting to give my kids a leg up if I can afford it" and/or a combo of the two.

I fully understand that there are some parents who send their children to private schools and really have to scrimp and save to meet the costs but, at the end of the day, it's a service and should attract VAT, just like Business English courses and driving lessons. What's good for the goose...

I agree with the firstparagraph, its a free world (at the moment)

Also agree with your last paragrpah, but private school fees aren't the only anomoly. University fees? Public transport? The Printed word? Putting VAT on book and magazine sales would have raked in far more

[MadAmster]

Common ground. Like it.

[ramAnag]

.

…and I honestly respect you for doing the best for your kids and recognise that it’s not just hooray Henrys who attend independent schools.

I’m fully aware that we’re not all born equal and haven’t mentioned politics, let alone a ‘communist Nirvana’. There is no greater start in life than having capable and caring parents, but I’d guess you probably lived in a relatively decent area and as, to an extent, schools are defined by their catchment area I doubt your kids would have ended up in ‘bad’ schools even without financial intervention.

I think your final paragraph is the one I struggle with. Admire your self proclaimed work ethic and doubtless like mine, it stems from parental example. It’s a tad patronising however to think that your work ethic set you apart from others who may simply not have had the same earning ability regardless of how hard they worked.

All I’m actually advocating is that we all know what is desirable in terms of educational facilities, wouldn’t it be better to share them around a little more?

P.S. Sorry, site playing up again, wouldn’t let me quote you.

[Andy_Faber]

I think your final paragraph is the one I struggle with. Admire your self proclaimed work ethic and doubtless like mine, it stems from parental example. It’s a tad patronising however to think that your work ethic set you apart from others who may simply not have had the same earning ability regardless of how hard they worked.

All I’m actually advocating is that we all know what is desirable in terms of educational facilities, wouldn’t it be better to share them around a little more?

Either you misunderstood or I didn't put it very well - its a shame, but a fact, that outcomes are different for people who work 'hard' in high paying jobs (lets say, as I was one, accountants) versus those who work equally hard as, for instance, nurses. Doesn't make me as the high earner 'superior' as a person. I think that's what you were getting at

And at the two schools I'm aware of, facilities are 'shared around' quite a lot. I'm more aware of sporting and musical asset than other things but there's a lot of sharing with the local state schools. Maybe thats not what you meant. The problem regarding sports (neither of the independant schools I'm aware of played football) was generating interest outside core hours

[SithHappens]

Brilliant https://x.com/Daily_Express/status/2...238814494?s=20

[Geoff Parkstone]

I know GP went to private (public) school as did I (though only via a particular form of scholarship and only between the ages of 10-14) but I wonder if either he or AF are genuinely aware of the disparity that currently exists between fee paying schools and more typical state run secondaries, particularly those in less well to do areas.
I?ve visited a few, for reasons I won?t go into now, and there is a chasm, not just a gap, between the facilities on offer to those who can afford it and those who can?t. Such a start in life provides a huge ?leg up? in terms of later success and, philosophically, I?d respectfully ask GP and AF to justify that inequality.
P.S. I?m not against access to such ?privileged? facilities?I?d just like them to be shared around more equally.

I dont see what this has got to do with my post (if indeed it was intended as a riposte even). My point was that the extra income generated by VAT, if used to increase nursery and child care places, isnt going to enable the development of places for thos kids no longer financially able to stay in the fee paying sector. On the basis MA mentions facilities would not be improved but just stressed forther.

I might be inclined to suggest you read what I say rather than attribute views to me that you can then argue against

[ramAnag]

Either you misunderstood or I didn't put it very well - its a shame, but a fact, that outcomes are different for people who work 'hard' in high paying jobs (lets say, as I was one, accountants) versus those who work equally hard as, for instance, nurses. Doesn't make me as the high earner 'superior' as a person. I think that's what you were getting at

And at the two schools I'm aware of, facilities are 'shared around' quite a lot. I'm more aware of sporting and musical asset than other things but there's a lot of sharing with the local state schools. Maybe thats not what you meant. The problem regarding sports (neither of the independant schools I'm aware of played football) was generating interest outside core hours

I wasn’t being personal, but you attributed the ability to provide independent education for your children to your work ethic.
What I’m suggesting is that work ethic and ability to earn are different and some people with a great work ethic - maybe to the point that they have two or three jobs - will never be able to earn what you, or I, have earned through a possible combination of perceived intelligence and qualification.

Beyond that I’m agreeing with MARP in so much as, you are paying for a ‘service’ and with that comes VAT.
Now if we were to tax more fairly and constructively - and, unpopular though it undoubtedly is, I can’t actually see a way around taxation paying for the health, education and transport services we all require - then we could provide those better services and perhaps well intentioned parents such as yourself wouldn’t have to pay the 10-35000k pa school fees to reassure yourself that your kids are getting a decent education and access to the best facilities be that in sport, music, IT or whatever.

[ramAnag]

I dont see what this has got to do with my post (if indeed it was intended as a riposte even). My point was that the extra income generated by VAT, if used to increase nursery and child care places, isnt going to enable the development of places for thos kids no longer financially able to stay in the fee paying sector. On the basis MA mentions facilities would not be improved but just stressed forther.

I might be inclined to suggest you read what I say rather than attribute views to me that you can then argue against

Did I ‘attribute views to you’? What were they then?

[Geoff Parkstone]

To personalise this a bit more I went o a boarding school aged 11-18 not by virtue of my parents having the cash to pay but because I got at (an approximate) 97% scholarship. The resiual fees my parents paid were less than it would have been to feed me annually! I hated boarding and would not impose that on my own children but nonetheless paid for them to go to a fee paying day school. Not massive sums and certainly accessible to many people with lower earnings than I.

Why? Well in my case the local secondary school would have been (in todays terminology) in extreme special measures, had just become a comprehensive and was about 6 miles away with very limited public or school transport. With both parents working farmers that would have been a huge problem. So I like to think that I got rA's so called privilege by virtue of attaining a massive scholarship by working hard myself, not because of family wealth. That scholarship was open to all, so non discriminatory.

So why did I pay for my kids to go private. Again the local state secondary was in special measures and later wnt through a complete retooling and renaming as its reputation was so appalling in the local community. The other "free" option was a faith school which required parents to prove their children were worthy of a place because they attended whatever faith places of worship that were appropriate - and required proof from the "vicar". It didnt discrimninate between religions, but you had to follow one. I toyed with the idea of applying on the basis of being a satanist......but no.

So in neither generational case of use of fee paying education was any of this through privilege or wealth but rather a lack of options. Had their been a decent school in my area Id not have paid for an education for my kids...but I wasnt going to put them through the state system: one of my sons friends at primary school shot himself dead after 3 years at that state school as a result of severe, unregulated bullying.

In summary then I went to private school because the alternatives were poor, impractical and the private option was cheaper. I made enough money to keep my own children away from awful options. Im sure there are many other schools in the state system like those my kids had available, Im not suggesting suicides amongst 13-14 year old students are unique to this area, but we could just about afford it and it was a choice I made.

I appreciate that there are some that will claim not to be able to afford to give their kids a better education - but it was interesting to see kids whose parents would drop them off in a (most likely second) Mercedes or BMW at primary school subsequently sending their kids to a failing secondary school. People who pay for education do it by choice, deciding to use their hard earend net income in the way they want to - others may spend it on holidays, consumer durables, cars, second homes, beer and fags - whatever they chose. So its a bit harsh to penalise those who prioritise education as their preferred spend.

But such is the politics of jealousy - if I cant afford it because I prioritise spending on myself, then Ill make sure you cant prioritise it my making it unaffordable for all.

All of which is unrelated to VAT, which in principal I dont disagree with. Its more the needle that broke the camels back, rather than the sole cause of private schools closing across the country. What I do disagree with is the apparant spending of the windfall VAT on preschool and childminding etc rather than on resources to fill in the gaps in senior schools created by the increased demands on the state system given by the VAT levy.

But there will always be some who think dragging everyone down to the same bad standards is better than having some do better than others. And equally there will always be some idealists who (in my view misguidedly) think you can continue raising taxes to attain nirvana for all. An interesting stat last week contextualises it - that more money is spent on benefits than is collected in income tax in UK. And that isnt because income tax rates are low

[Geoff Parkstone]

....I wonder if either he or AF are genuinely aware of the disparity that currently exists between fee paying schools and more typical state run secondaries, particularly those in less well to do areas....

The "he" being me. Infers a presumed ignorance of the subject