V.A.T, in school fees

Can't stand sour grapes.
What's sour grapes about wanting an equal playing field - or any playing field at all - for all children, not just the privileged few.
You cannot dispute daphne's figures about the number of children at private schools whose parents earnings are in the top ten percent.
I speak as someone who went to a private school, but whose father quite regularly drove the school bus behind all the Jaguars and Rolls Royces. No, he couldn't afford to pay for me to go there.
I was the only one in my year whose parents applied for clothing grants for me.

I think, rafichagran, some posts lead to "carry(ing) on living on sour grapes."

It never makes any sense when posts devolve into money and the differences in peoples lives, but such foolery happens often. Ridiculous comparisons and unhappiness.

Lets face it, if you were starting with a blank canvas, to design an education system, you would not come up with what we have at the moment

Too right JessM it's a complete mess.

People with no children pay for state schools. People who only work here for a couple of years before returning to other countries pay for state schools. Everyone benefits from living in an educated country.
The state system has coped with bigger challenges than closing Independent schools and could adapt if there was a phased closure of Independent schools. In most boroughs is it no more than one or two new primaries and one more secondary.
Let's face it, if you were starting with a blank canvas, to design an education system, you would not come up with what we have at the moment - a divisive system that gives life advantages to the children whose parents just happen to be able to afford one of the more expensive independent schools. It's a system that we have inherited because school-types were started more than once in our history, with compulsory education for all - the state run system - coming late to the party. And this system has been a perpetuated by the class system - whereby power has been retained disproportionately by men who came through the Eton/Harrow - > Oxbridge route. And this inequality of power is still alive and well - the government that has imposed swingeing austerity on the poorest in the country was dominated by some fine examples.

Trisher I don't really think it matters that teachers trained at the expense of the state then teach in private schools - they are still teaching UK kids who go on to work and contribute. I'm generally ok with the concept of private education, and indeed with the tax breaks such schools receive (given that the parents still pay their share of general taxes) but I do agree with what one poster said (Jess I think) that if all kids were in the local state school we would all be fully invested in supporting our schools. As it is many of the parents who are most committed to good education have opted out of the state system, which I'm sure suffers as a result. But whether this is a good enough reason to frogmarch them and their kids into the local school (eg by taxing the private system to the extent that it is no longer viable) is another matter. I'm in two minds but, on balance, would leave things as they are in the absence of truly reliable evidence that change would really have a substantially beneficial effect (i.e. much more than a hunch on my part!).

So doctors who choose to work in private practice but are educated in state education, receive training in NHS hospital which is also paid for by the state are different to teachers who wotk in private schools yet received their education from the state

Do you really think that the cost of actually training a teacher is met by the fees charged by universities. Yes they pay but that is only part of the cost.
Suppose a doctor chose to only work in private practice and not be part of the National Health service- oh but they can't do that because their training requires they work in hospitals. There is no such restriction on teachers.
I agree it is nit picking but it is just as valid as those who are insisting that somehow people who have their children privately educated are paying twice because they pay tax and school fees Just pointing out that they benefit from their taxes anyway.

If private schools ceased to exist, the state education system would be in trouble because there would not be enough school places for everyone's children. Why does the Labour Party think parents, who have done well in life and who decide that they would prefer their children be educated in the private system, should be expected to pay for other people's children? They are already doing the tax payer a favour by removing the cost of educating their own children from the state budget!

Jeremy Corbyn went to a grammar school himself but he opposes them. Diane Abbot opposes private schools but sent her own son to one. Both are hypocrites. There are many other Labour MPs who also choose to use the private system for their children. It seems they think the state system is good enough for their voters' children but not for their own!

I agree daphnedil that charitable status for independent schools should be removed. It is giving an unfair tax break to a organisations that are not charitable. Some of them try to pay lip service by doing "outreach work" etc
They are not charities by any stretch of the imagination.
I know a young man who went to one and had a wander round once. Fantastic sporting facilities and half a dozen Steinways for music students to practice on.
All schools should be great. The tories have been wasting huge amounts of money on "free schools"in England while banning Local Authorities from planning and building their own new schools. And all because Gove saw a couple of successful "charter schools" in the USA and seized on the idea with missionary zeal.
By allowing private schools to thrive the state sector has long been undermined in many ways and inequalities are perpetrated. Many people of moderately left wing views would like to see an end to them. One effect would be that all the people in an area would have a vested interest in the success of their local school.
And yes - anything we can do to improve the nutritional status of children is a good thing. I have seen children who packed their own lunch boxes eating a variety of sweet biscuits for lunch. I've also seen children given "lunch money" come into school with a pocket full of sweets. At one time there were proper school dinners with "seconds". When I taught in Oldham there were 3 sittings for dinner. Some of the boys - rather skinny teenagers - would always go into the last sitting as that was when you had a chance of 'seconds".
If you go to a school in a poor area you will see that the kids are on average smaller than those in the more affluent area a couple of miles away. And if you compare the sizes of the kids in the different sets, you will see that the average size of the ones in the "bottom sets" is noticeably less, with a later age of puberty.

You really are a fool DD,he had to take crap like that from badly educated neighbours who used to drink, smoke and take all manner of holidays, their decision , but he chose to educate his son. He lived on a estate that I would not have liked to live on, with jealous and uneducated neighbours, what's your excuse.

I have told you be is not wealthy and he is still paying back the money for his son's education. I am not a liar and when I tell you he is not wealthy I expect decent people to accept this.

I have for the first time showed my partner a post I am on in Gransnet and he told me you cannot argue with a Idiot, I agree, so you carry on living on sour grapes, and his son will carry on reaping the rewards that his wonderful Father sacrificed so much for.

If something is Getting up your nose try blowing it and stop talking rubbish.

Daphne, I was giving my opinion on trisher's post that teachers in private schools are state educated and private schools benefit from this,

Going by the views of the far left on here ,if Corbyn did win in 2020 we can change the name of the UK to little Russia

I don't understand your point. Teachers usually pay for their own training these days and take out loans to do so. What does their parents' tax status have to do with it? Parents' income doesn't affect the money students receive from the state since grants were abolished.

And I assume the cost of training these teachers and is paid for by tax tax payers theseare all children of parents who hive never paid tax ?

I don't think they are, rafichagran but your claim that your partner was not wealthy gets up my nose.

Errmmm trisher These days, the cost of training teachers is usually borne by the trainee teachers themselves, apart from those in a few subjects, who receive a training bursary.

And those who teach in public schools and educated by the state are different to those who study medicine or anything then leave the country? Those who are educated in other countries and come here to work should stay in their own country?

We seem to have at least three discussions going on here:

1 Should independent schools lose their charitable status and pay VAT?
2 Should all primary school pupils receive free school lunches?
3 Should the two be linked?

1 Yes. I think they should, although I would want to see how this would work in practice and whether there would be unintended consequences.

2 No. It would cost an estimated billion pounds and I think the money could be better spent by targeting those who really need the money rather than those who don't. Lessons could be learnt from the pupil premium programme or perhaps looking at extra funding for pre-school and/or before and after school clubs. I am not convinced that school dinners are that nutritious. If the aim is to make sure children are fed properly throughout the year, there is still the problem of school holidays and weekends.

3. Definitely no, because (as we can see on this thread) people start squabbling about unfairness, etc.

Oh, and Number 4...Will anything happen anyway?

Probably not, because I seriously can't see Labour winning the 2020 election.

If it comes to the cost Private schools benefit hugely from teacher training which is state education. If they really want to be independent they should train their own teachers as it is the cost of training a teacher is born by the tax payer and private schools benefit

If subsidised school meals are paid for through general taxation then wealthier parents who avail themselves of state education for whatever reason will be paying for it through their higher rate of general taxation and all children will benefit; those in need should receive meals free of charge.

To penalise parents who choose to pay for private education as well as paying through general taxation for the education of the children of other people is the politics of envy.

Interesting that it was an idea of Michael Gove taken on by Jeremy Corbyn.
Will Corbyn admirers think that Gove's idea was a good one?
Angela Rayner for one said of Michael Gove's proprosal:
Quite frankly, it is one of the most sensible education policies I have heard him propose

Far right and far left meet somewhere round the back of sensible thoughts.

DD I do not have to look up facts,I know them from my work. I do not read the tabloids, you knew your circumstances, and not other peoples,Living in London where rents are high, 16k is a very low amount.
I would also thankyou not to refer to my partner as wealthy, when you do not know his situation. A very intelligent man who worked in factories doing hard work rather than sign on because he could not get the jobs he was qualified to do because of his skin colour.He then finally got a break but on a low salary and he worked his way up. He knew his son was not going to go through what he did, so he scrimped , scraped and done without to afford his sons education. If VAT was on top of that he could not afford it.
I totally admire my partner and people who work hard to afford this education and whilst I do not begrudge poor households free school meals I don't see why one set of parents should pay for others.
I would also add I was a single parent at one time on the old family credit, I did not qualify for free school meals and I did not expect it, its my responsibility, and I would not want it paid for by other school children's parents.
So you have a nice day*DD*and stop thinking every ones circumstances are the same as your own.

That's the point fitzy. They don't feel wealthy but they are, compared with many people.

db I don't have to use any tax avoidance scheme either, for the simple reason that I don't have a high enough income to pay tax, but I'm not poor enough to claim benefits. Maybe you can see where I'm coming from when I claim that people who can afford £16k school fees are wealthy. Am I right in thinking that the tax on benefits is relatively new?

The claim that only some people in receipt of benefits get less than £16k is nonsense - even in Greater London.

Poverty campaigners have calculated that 116,000 families in the UK will be affected by the reduction in benefit cap to £23k in London and £20k in the rest of the country.

116,000 families might sound a lot and is, of course, devastating for those affected. However, it's a tiny percent of the estimated 11 million families (excluding pensioner households) who receive benefits. More than half of them rely on benefits for at least half of their income. The average (mean) amount of benefits for those receiving any benefits (including sickness benefits) is about £90.

What is?

By the same token, contributions are often made by grandparents towards their lower-paid children's household income - so you could say they pay for their GC's school meals.

Either way, it's not a winner for JC.

Don't forget, some schools fees are paid by grandparents (in whole or in part) so this vat idea would clobber them as well.
A few well-off parents have always dispersed their wealth in this way, feeling it a worthy home for money they need to "lose" before death duties.

Wealth depends on more than gross wage. Take home payfor someone earning £50 k would be under 37k. The average house price in London is getting on for £500k. I doubt someone earning that sum in London isn't on the bemreadline but I doubt they will feel very wealthy.