One of the things that always irritates me about discussions on tax is how abstract they are.
“Raise £100 billion.”
“Shift 5% of GDP.”
“Broaden the base and lower the rate.”
Lovely phrases. Very neat.
Totally useless if you’re trying to understand what it means for actual people.
So, let’s stop talking in quintiles and deciles and fiscal multipliers for a moment.
Let’s talk about real households — the kinds of people you meet in the supermarket queue, in the staffroom, in the café, or at the school gate.
Because if we’re going to build a school system that treats every child the way private schools treat theirs — small classes, stable buildings, real enrichment, proper SEN support — then yes, we need to raise about £110–130 billion a year in new recurring revenue.
The question is:
Who pays how much? And is that fair?
I’m going to answer that the way life actually works: through stories.
🧍♀️ Persona 1: Leanne — single mum, part-time retail worker (£18,500/year)
Leanne works 28 hours a week at a supermarket. She rents a two-bed flat. She has one child in primary school. Her budget is already a careful Tetris game of rent, food, energy, and “unexpected items in the bagging area.”
Under a progressive funding model for universal private-level schooling, here’s what happens:
👉 She pays nothing extra.
Not a penny.
Why? Because fairness isn’t “everyone pays the same”. Fairness is “pain felt” — and Leanne is already feeling enough.
Her child benefits hugely — smaller classes, better pastoral care, a modern building — and she doesn’t face any new tax burden at all.
Her pain is zero.
Her gain is enormous.
👫 Persona 2: James & Rina — young couple, renting, no kids yet (£30k + £24k = £54k)
They’re in their mid-twenties, renting a small flat. Not rich, not poor. They manage. Kids are a “future conversation.”
Their contribution under a fair, progressive model:
👉 About £700–£1,000 a year.
Roughly £14–£20 a week.
Annoying, yes. Life-changing, no.
And when they eventually have children? They get:
- 20-pupil classes
- teachers who aren’t burnt out
- modern, ventilated, safe buildings
- real SEN support if needed
- enrichment without relying on PTA cake-sale economics
Mild pain now, major gain later.
👨👩👧👦 Persona 3: Dave & Priya — two kids, mortgage, average incomes (£37k + £29k = £66k)
Classic “middle of the middle.” Mortgage. After-school clubs. A car that was reliable until last Thursday.
They currently pay nothing for schooling. Under this system, they’d contribute:
👉 About £1,800–£2,400 a year — £35–£45 a week.
It’s real money — but they also get:
- class sizes of 20
- a stable teaching workforce
- a safe, modern school estate
- SEN support instead of year-long waits
- a properly funded curriculum, arts and sports
This is shared investment, not punishment.
💼 Persona 4: Sarah — high earner, no kids, £95,000/year
Sarah works in tech. She enjoys the money. She understands she’ll contribute more — and she does.
👉 Her extra annual tax is ~£9,000–£12,000.
But here’s the twist: this sum is still less than what her peers pay privately per child.
And she benefits indirectly through:
- a more productive economy
- a more skilled workforce
- social stability
- lower crime
- higher long-term growth
This is a meaningful contribution, but nowhere near her capacity.
🏫 Persona 5: The Harrisons — high earners with two children in private school (£180k + £130k = £310k)
Here’s the group everyone assumes will riot.
The Harrisons pay £40,000/year in school fees for two children.
Under a progressive model, their extra tax is:
👉 £25,000–£35,000 per year.
Now the maths:
They stop paying £40k in fees.
They start paying £25–35k in tax.
Net gain: £5,000–£15,000.
Yes, really.
This is the group who — unexpectedly — save money under universal private-level schooling.
👑 Persona 6: The Top 1% — incomes £450k+, significant assets
Here is where fairness bites hardest — because it should.
The top 1% would see:
- a higher additional-rate band (50–55%)
- CGT aligned with income tax for high-asset individuals
- reduced higher-rate reliefs
- a small levy on multi-million-pound property portfolios
Their contribution?
👉 £50,000–£300,000+ per household
They feel it — but they can absorb it without any meaningful lifestyle impact.
And their contribution funds stability, opportunity and long-term economic growth.
⭐ What These Six People Teach Us About Fairness
Across these households, a pattern emerges:
- The poorest pay nothing.
- Lower earners pay a small weekly amount.
- Middle earners pay something noticeable but manageable.
- Upper-middle earners pay real money — but get huge family benefits.
- High earners pay a lot — but still less than private fees.
- The very richest pay the most — because they feel the pain the least.
And the whole country gets:
- classes of 20
- a safe, modern school estate
- a stable, well-paid teaching workforce
- serious SEN support
- proper arts, sport and enrichment
- equal opportunity
- and far higher long-run prosperity
This is how civilised nations invest in themselves.
This is what fairness looks like when fairness is defined as “pain felt, not pounds paid.”
Discover more from Hysnaps Politics, Gaming, Music and Mental Health
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
