Bye Bye Sunak..

[V8Granite]

It’s eye wateringly frustrating at times.

I was on a ship in Peterhead, a part which was produced in Aberdeen was what we needed for our Honing machine. I had done everything possible and now couldn’t go further till I had fixed the machine.

The part had to go to our stores in Holland, be blipped in, then sent so it could be picked, blipped out, then sent to me in Peterhead.

It was 4 days but before then it was a 2 hour round trip

Dave!

[Swervin_Mervin]

You're both right!

[V8Granite]

He didn't create money from nothing, he saw savings that others missed. It's not magic.

He was paid from a pot of money that before him was not there. It wasn’t available as it was being spent unwisely on waste.

If he made a £1 loaf of bread suddenly cost 90p, he created that extra money to be spent.

Dave!

It's semantics but I disagree, the money was there he just freed it up for his pocket

I'd bet that he wouldn't have made that agreement if he didn't see some significant savings as soon as he started looking at the business.

Completely agree, he was there for a few weeks before they started changing stuff. I guess if he didn’t see a pay cheque in it he wouldn’t have tried. Also I bet quite a lot was generic things that just needed to be tweeked to work in this particular factory. It did work though and everyone was very happy as we hit full bonus that year.

Dave!

[V8Granite]

You're both right!

That’s not how me and Zedleg work, he is left, I am right, shenanigans ensue and we call each other a cunt.

Dave!

[Sundayjumper]

The average cost of state education is £7k per year.

Source ? Because I wouldn't be surprised if that's just the day-to-day operating cost, not including the capital cost of setting it up in the first place.
Which if you're going to magic up 60k+ places very very quickly, in exactly the areas of the country that need it, is going to be "a lot" of money. Probably 100+ schools. Here's an example, £35m for 900 places, and that's out in the sticks where land is cheap.

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/n ... ry-7530332

So.... 60,000 places / 900 per school x £35m = at least £2.3bn up front. Plus training up a few thousand new teachers.

It's just not going to happen when the alternative is leaving things as they are.

(to be clear - I'm not saying high quality new schools are a bad idea, I'm saying forcing people out of private school by applying VAT to fees is not going to pay for this and will create more problems in the state system than it supposedly solves)

I'd go for this as a compromise - add VAT to fees, but make that amount available for a new assisted places scheme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_Places_Scheme

That would hopefully minimise the burden on the state schools to create new places, wealthy* families don't notice a lot of difference, middling families get a bit of help, everyone's happy ? Except for anyone who's pushing this for ideological reasons rather than in the interests of kids getting a good education. Which is why Labour abolished it...


* I am aware that defining "wealthy" might be hard to pin down. £100k household income ? Dunno. That seems like the level where £15-20k pa of fees is just about possible but a bit of a stretch, where adding 20% could be the final straw.

[ZedLeg]

We largely agree about how things should work, just very different ways of getting there

[Swervin_Mervin]

A suggestion I saw on PH was applying VAT to school fees but providing tax relief on them for UK taxpayers.

be interesting to see what Labour's intentions are regarding closer relations with the EU though - education specifically not being able to be taxed in the EU.

[ZedLeg]

I think my suggestion was to put VAT on and give the option of a tax credit that would be available to parents who have to use a private school due to a child's disability or whatever.

[Rich B]

A suggestion I saw on PH was applying VAT to school fees but providing tax relief on them for UK taxpayers.

be interesting to see what Labour's intentions are regarding closer relations with the EU though - education specifically not being able to be taxed in the EU.

so this is another policy made possible by Brexit?!

[Swervin_Mervin]

I think my suggestion was to put VAT on and give the option of a tax credit that would be available to parents who have to use a private school due to a child's disability or whatever.

And then you get into the issue of what constitutes a disability. You'll have plenty of cases of kids with ADHD that can't have their needs met in the local state system simply because class sizes can't be kept low, for example.

And to come back to it again - what about capacity that doesn't exist? Our local primary has gone from 1>1.5>2 form entry over the last 10 years. It's had the luxury of a lot of grounds to be able to expand into. But even at 2 form entry they're still teaching kids int he corridors. And that's a school that has been able to expand. Many simply wouldn't be able to. I think many are guilty of thinking that schools can expand if they get a a bit of cash, but in a lot of cases it's simply not possible without potentially relocating and providing entirely new facilities. And that isn't cheap in the majority of areas where it's an issue because land in built up areas is scarce and expensive.

[Jobbo]

Sorry to be harsh, but I don't believe that 20% makes the difference in your decision. If you're considering sending your child to private school right now, a £4K a term or £5k a term cost isn't going to fundamentally change your whole ethos for sending your kid to private school.

The bog standard private school near us is £8k per term, I think that's closer to average in the south east. So you're looking at nearly £5k p/a extra, factor in income tax and that is a significant chunk of additional salary for a working family.

Is this a case of "I've got good state schools near me so I think it's a good policy?". We have some good state schools near us too, but obviously they are all massively over subscribed.

so have you abandoned the idea because it may go up by up to 15%?

If your child already goes to fee-paying school there's much less chance that you'll take them out of it if the price leaps 20%. If you have one child at fee-paying school then chances are you won't deny that opportunity to the second (and third, fourth - keep it in your pants why don't you?!) even if the fees go up. But if you have not yet made the decision it's a much harder call. The rigorous surveys bear this out.

Pleased to say that I have no school-age kids so my interest in this policy is academic. I do think it's massively risky because Labour should not be about the politics of envy; and if it happens to be effective at reducing the number of kids at public schools, it will:
- Increase the burden on the state schools which aren't prepared at all; and
- Risk killing smaller fee-paying schools.

I went to fee-paying school for nearly 4 years until my father decided it was too expensive and I left aged about 11. Part way through a school year. I don't think it did me any harm but I wouldn't wish that on anyone; there's nothing like giving your kids a sense of the impermanence of the basic day to day routines they rely on I've been fortunate only to go to one pretty average state school, though. For that reason if I had school-age kids I'd be buying a house so close to the school gates of the state school I wanted them to attend that it's impossible for the school to say no. I'm happy for others to send their kids to fee-paying schools but I'd rather put the money in property.

[Swervin_Mervin]

The bog standard private school near us is £8k per term, I think that's closer to average in the south east. So you're looking at nearly £5k p/a extra, factor in income tax and that is a significant chunk of additional salary for a working family.

Is this a case of "I've got good state schools near me so I think it's a good policy?". We have some good state schools near us too, but obviously they are all massively over subscribed.

so have you abandoned the idea because it may go up by up to 15%?

If your child already goes to fee-paying school there's much less chance that you'll take them out of it if the price leaps 20%. If you have one child at fee-paying school then chances are you won't deny that opportunity to the second (and third, fourth - keep it in your pants why don't you?!) even if the fees go up. But if you have not yet made the decision it's a much harder call. The rigorous surveys bear this out.

Pleased to say that I have no school-age kids so my interest in this policy is academic. I do think it's massively risky because Labour should not be about the politics of envy; and if it happens to be effective at reducing the number of kids at public schools, it will:
- Increase the burden on the state schools which aren't prepared at all; and
- Risk killing smaller fee-paying schools.

I went to fee-paying school for nearly 4 years until my father decided it was too expensive and I left aged about 11. Part way through a school year. I don't think it did me any harm but I wouldn't wish that on anyone; there's nothing like giving your kids a sense of the impermanence of the basic day to day routines they rely on I've been fortunate only to go to one pretty average state school, though. For that reason if I had school-age kids I'd be buying a house so close to the school gates of the state school I wanted them to attend that it's impossible for the school to say no. I'm happy for others to send their kids to fee-paying schools but I'd rather put the money in property.

Which of course is another unintended consequence. If you don't pay through fees you'll pay through property.

[dinny_g]

Exactly - it's pretty anecdotal but average house prices were 10% to 15% higher in the catchment of the school that WAS the best in the region. Our School has only overtaken them 18 months ago so we haven't seen a similar rise but it's coming. It has just about enough capacity (I don't think they've had to turn down anyone in the catchment) but as more and more houses are built, it's only a matter of time

[Swervin_Mervin]

I mean I guess I should be pretty happy with any proposals from a purely selfish perspective. We live in an area that still has state grammars. Our house prices are probably going to rise at an even higher rate.

[ZedLeg]

If we put real effort into bringing up the standard at all state schools it would improve this.

The fact that we have such a wide variance in the standards of state schools is a bit disgusting tbh.

[Jobbo]

Which of course is another unintended consequence. If you don't pay through fees you'll pay through property.

True, though it's one which we've lived with for decades. Rocking the house price boat is definitely not on the political agenda

[Nefarious]

The average cost of state education is £7k per year.

Source ?

IFS Annual report on Education 2023

"Secondary school spending per pupil in England in 2023–24 is due to be about £6,900, which is 10% higher than in primary schools (£6,300)."

And that does seem to be total, rather than marginal spend - fag packet sums: £10m pupils, £7k each = £70bn. Total education budget £113bn. Take off further education, student loans, pre-school education and childcare and I reckon you're in the ballpark.


My point was to reject the idea that VAT on private schools should be couldn't possibly be considered because of the few marginal cases where pupils could not longer afford to go to public school. I actually think that the number of pupils in public school wouldn't change at all - I can't prove it to the standards expected on here, but I suspect that the demand is sufficiently price inelastic that public schools will just adjust their entry selection requirements slightly to compensate and end up admitting exactly the same number of pupils.

The bottom line is that state schools are undeniably underfunded both at an operating and capital level, and accommodating that failure shouldn't be a legitimate excuse for continuing a policy of yet more tax breaks for rich people

[Nefarious]

I should add that whilst I morally support the idea of taxing private school fees, I think, as a policy, it falls down on several practical levels , especially in this form. First amongst them is that the money won't be ringfenced. Also, the public schools themselves are doing quite a lot at the moment to keep the wolf from the door in terms of taxing fees (e.g. assisted places, bursaries etc) - all that stops when the wolf is already inside.

New schools need to be built and more operating expenses need allocating, irrespective of whether there's an extra £2.4bn in the wider pot from this particular policy.

[dinny_g]

yet more tax breaks for rich people

It's not a tax break

[Rich B]

I actually think that the number of pupils in public school wouldn't change at all - I can't prove it to the standards expected on here, but I suspect that the demand is sufficiently price inelastic that public schools will just adjust their entry selection requirements slightly to compensate and end up admitting exactly the same number of pupils.

I think the same - these schools are businesses, they can't afford to lose xx% of their customers any more than the customers can afford to go elsewhere.

They will need to find a mechanism to work - though they can't state that mechanism now because that would be supporting the idea (in the same way as very rich people won't just say that it's fine, they can just pay a little more).