It's only a small part of the overall calculation.
As far as I can see, if they estimate that 3-7% of pupils will drop out of private education, then that's between £60-140m out of the estimated £2b tax take. If we took the midpoint and assumed that your "several people" were in fact every single one of them, then that's a £100m difference in a calculation that ends up at £1.3b-1.5b.
Of course, most people aren't going to be earning only to pay school fees, and giving up their jobs, so it's likely to be a much smaller effect. The calculations also include reduced VAT take from other spending.
As the article points out, the increase in household spending would only be in very low single figures, so it's unlikely to drastically reduce anyone's spending power.
Well the main argument in this case should really be whether education should be subject to VAT in general. The current situation is that anything that is a 'school subject' isn't subject to VAT either in terms of extra private tuition or actually attending a private school. This would also include, for example, a summer school where foreigners come over to learn English. It would also include the materials for those courses, or online courses such as the open university. It also includes most vocational courses, but I believe that certain corporate training courses are subject to VAT.
So the question would be whether you are going to add VAT onto things like summer schools as well. Because obviously it's one thing to say that these schools are clearly a business and should pay the same business rates as any other business, but it doesn't mean that the product they're selling should be subject to VAT. We do currently have a general principle that core educational products aren't subject to VAT. I don't think Tesco should be considered a charity, but that doesn't mean they should be forced to add VAT to their bread. But the question is whether private education is considered a luxury, and if so, which private education. Is your kid's Montessori nursery a luxury? Should that be slapped with an extra 20%?
Labour haven’t got around to the finer points of what will be included within the charge.Well the main argument in this case should really be whether education should be subject to VAT in general. The current situation is that anything that is a 'school subject' isn't subject to VAT either in terms of extra private tuition or actually attending a private school. This would also include, for example, a summer school where foreigners come over to learn English. It would also include the materials for those courses, or online courses such as the open university. It also includes most vocational courses, but I believe that certain corporate training courses are subject to VAT.
So the question would be whether you are going to add VAT onto things like summer schools as well. Because obviously it's one thing to say that these schools are clearly a business and should pay the same business rates as any other business, but it doesn't mean that the product they're selling should be subject to VAT. We do currently have a general principle that core educational products aren't subject to VAT. I don't think Tesco should be considered a charity, but that doesn't mean they should be forced to add VAT to their bread. But the question is whether private education is considered a luxury, and if so, which private education. Is your kid's Montessori nursery a luxury? Should that be slapped with an extra 20%?
Labour haven’t got around to the finer points of what will be included within the charge.
As the VAT rules stand at the moment the very wealthy will avoid the VAT charge if they pay all the school fees up front.
What next, VAT on private heath care.
But you're still talking about likely tens of millions out of a £1.3-1.5bn estimate.The analysis doesn’t take into account how the policy might impact labour supply decisions.
I’m not suggesting that every family that withdraws their children from private education would see one person give up work entirely, as that would be an extreme assumption. But I do think there would be an impact - people would work fewer hours - and the impact this would have on NICs, income tax and the economy’s potential growth rate is not included in the analysis.
Well yeah, I'm not a big fan of private schooling, but I'd rather they just focus on improving the public sector schooling first. If they want to raise more money to pay for it, how about starting by bringing shit like capital gains tax up to the same level as income tax? I don't see why someone going to work 40 hours-a-week pays a higher rate of tax than someone who has effectively just invested some of their already very disposable income.Labour haven’t got around to the finer points of what will be included within the charge.
As the VAT rules stand at the moment the very wealthy will avoid the VAT charge if they pay all the school fees up front.
What next, VAT on private heath care.
I would have thought if it was classified as a subsidy at the moment, the fees would be tax deductible against the parents income.To be fair, most of the argument is around whether they should have VAT exemption or not, which does make it others business too and the conservatives previously and labour now are in favour of it.
Personally I’m not averse to private schools. I just don’t think they should be subsidised.
Cunts like Clarkson and Branson with 4 O levels between them initially got on through nepotism and money, don’t fool yourselves it had anything to do with the public school education they received.Believe me, as someone who went to a Secondary Modern School, we were cannon fodder who’s sole intention was to provide an ample supply of labour to do the jobs the private and grammar school parents didn’t want their kids to do.
Low achievement was expected and delivered.
Perhaps the Comprehensive system has moved the goal posts a little but I would take the private system over the State system any day of the week.
So what if the parents throw money at their kids in the real world it’s dog eat dog.
If a few of the kids in the private schools are thick they will still end up with a better overall education than had they gone to a State School as they will be pushed to perform to the best of their ability so the parents can say they have given them the best overall start in life..
They will still end up with better jobs than had they been in the State system
I don't think most universities are private. They might operate like they are, because the government refuses to fund them properly.It’s a good point though, how do you legislate to charge VAT on school fees but not on uni fees? Both are private education institutions are they not? Any attempts to distinguish between the two will likely end up with a lot of legal challenges.
I can’t argue with that re Capital Gains despite most of my income being from capital gains over the last 20 years.Well yeah, I'm not a big fan of private schooling, but I'd rather they just focus on improving the public sector schooling first. If they want to raise more money to pay for it, how about starting by bringing shit like capital gains tax up to the same level as income tax? I don't see why someone going to work 40 hours-a-week pays a higher rate of tax than someone who has effectively just invested some of their already very disposable income.