As the state entrance now is and that is meritocracy.
Do you honestly think if a parent realised they had a thicko they would continue to shell out year on year? They may carry on private but at a much lower standard.

It's absolute fact.

You don't need to pay for private school. You can find a good quality state school and send your kids there. It's a luxury item, a lifestyle choice.

'Luxury – a state of great comfort or elegance, especially when involving great expense.' Bang on the money. No pun intended.

Also 'lefties'... 'probably don't vote labour' etc. then goes on to say Labourites send their kids to private schools. Well the first part is observably wrong, the second is right – A large swathe of the left wing set send their kids to private school. Pretty much the entirety of the middle class Guardian set you so despise either send them there or aspire to do so. I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken if you think only right wingers and Tories send their kids to private schools. Perhaps Eton, Westminster and the elite schools, but the private system is extensive, diverse and more than just about the stereotypes that stem from the big names.

Private healthcare in the UK is a luxury expense, yes. As is private education. Americans don't have a choice. We do.

As already pointed out, I don't think the way the policy is being implemented will make as much difference as Labour are claiming (shock horror). However I think that it will make some difference, and that's better than no difference at all. A lot of private schools should also not be charities, and it's about time someone closed this loophole.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

OK, but the title of this thread is...

And you are actually indirectly making the point that charging VAT would be in effect charging these parents twice.

There is some logic in the voucher approach... but only as one of those classic 'That sounds like it makes sense' sort of thought experiments.

I had similar thoughts years ago to private vs. NHS. But when you actually start working it through it makes less and less sense. The fact you are not sending your kid to state school, or not choosing to use the NHS is already saving both institutions that cost. And as both systems are critically underfunded, paying that money saved out as some sort of dividend would be counterproductive – there would be no difference between you using the NHS or not using it, as it costs it the same amount regardless.

If we lived in a utopia and both systems were funded appropriately, and the amount of funding was precisely aligned to the amount of qualifying children and adults in the population, then sure, you might have a point. Money that had been allocated to an individual based on the assumption they would use the service in question would be surplus and could be returned.

Although even then, your taxes as an individual pay for a diverse range of services. You'd have to somehow make it proportionate... it gets hideously complex, fast, and falls on it's arse.

And actually returning to the point of this thread, if the view is that the VAT add is purely ideological rather than rational, I'd suggest that advocating for returning money to wealthy people from the state coffers without proper thought is similarly ideological and a vote buying strategy.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (17 Jun 2024 6.58pm)

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

‘Less privileged’ is the key. This indicates that the brightest whose parents earn but can’t afford 6k a year are penalised because they aren’t on the breadline. If it genuinely was the brightest a few ‘less privileged’ would get bursaries but kids from working families would as well. It’s not about academia, it’s about quotas sadly. Oh and labour are going to put vat on their own outlay, don’t you think that’s stupid or virtue signalling with some of my money ?

You need to look up 'fact' while you are at it.

But you might be right about some Labour types sending their kids to private schools. After this, they might vote Reform.

Luxury is not defined by having a choice. People have private health care provided or subsidised by their employers. It is a question of availability or being able to afford it. The latter is a big factor in private schooling.

Are you suggesting that luxury is defined by what one can afford and another can't?

In that case, it is all relative.

Fact my arse.

It is not a necessity, it is not an essential, it is not a requirement.

Not everyone that has private healthcare gets it via employment - and also, it is classed as a benefit. A nice to have. A little pearl to entice you to join said company. A luxury item.

You can have free healthcare via the NHS, and free education via the state system. To a good level if you’re actually bothered about where you send your kids or if you care about your health.

You do not need private education or healthcare, much like you don’t need all manner of ‘life’s little luxuries’.

I’m not sure how well you know the private system, if at all beyond cliches and stereotypes, but believe me in a lot of cases the word luxury is a perfect description for what you get for the money.

‘Luxury item’
‘A non-essential item that is deemed highly desirable within a culture or society’.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.