The Labour Government

[Scottyboi]

I can say for certain my bursary was not for any sporting achievements!!

Went to my daughter's sports day yesterday, completely ruined any hopes I had of her getting some funded scholarship haha.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Sorry but that’s just not the case at all mate. I’ve got family who work in education in a poor area and they’ve told me first hand the amount of bright kids that don’t get the opportunities they deserve is heartbreaking.

Absolutely, but that's often because of factors beyond the control of the school. The reality is that private school is self-selecting not just for income, but also for parents who really give a shit about their kids education, and are in a stable situation. And I think kids like that would almost certainly thrive in any school you put them in.

 

[Eds]

I'd say above 100k combined before tax but that's just off the top of my head. I have nothing against people coming from nothing and making good money or them paying to educate their children, but why should you get a VAT break for it? I'm not jealous one bit of people making money or aiming for the sky. The reality is that most don't and are a product of their surroundings and will never get that opportunity, there is plenty of luck involved not just hard work.

I'm guessing the Salford footballer is going to be some trick question where it's an ex pro who has already earned tens or hundreds of 1000s throughout their career and are now playing for fun? If not then my answer above should cover it.

Not a trick question at all. It’s was just an example of what might be considered a working class family. I would suggest that if a couple was grossing 100k a year then they could afford private education. My point is though that not all people who send their kids to private schools are wealthy and many are there because of bursaries. Whilst the headline of we are charging VAT on private education might get people thinking it’s ok it’s the rich getting hammered, I am not convinced that’s the case.

 

[BrianW]

Sorry but that’s just not the case at all mate. I’ve got family who work in education in a poor area and they’ve told me first hand the amount of bright kids that don’t get the opportunities they deserve is heartbreaking.

Kids in poor areas aren't going to be whisked off to Eton, or even a minor private school.

People in poor areas simply cannot afford such luxuries. So if you're worried about kids in poor areas, you're looking in the wrong book, so to speak. The only way to help those kids is to improve the state system. (Though a major factor in such areas is a lack of educational capital. Homes without a single book and so on. It's not just the school.)

Indeed, school is only part of education. I went to a chaotic grammar school where if you weren't a scientist the Headmaster had no real interest in you. Half the teachers (at least) were downright useless and would not be allowed in the profession now. To a very large extent, I educated myself. Quite literally. My parents were supportive, but we were not exactly rolling in cash and neither had a brilliant education themselves.

I honestly believe the modern state system is far better than it was in the 1960s, if you take it all round. (Which many people don't.) It is, however, grossly underfunded. And I mean grossly. So if you want to help disadvantaged children, you need more funds in there. What Labour is trying to do is give 50p where £5 is needed, but apparently, that's all we can afford, and many seem to resent even that.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

So Cheadle Hulme high school costs £75k for 5 years senior not including 6th form. You're going to tell me working class families are paying that? There is a big difference from having a working class background and being working class. Want to live like common people.

£15k a year? Doesn't cover at any of the schools I live near. Those poor parents, grafting their asses off to send their kid(s) to 4th rate private school. I actually feel sorry for them.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I'd say above 100k combined before tax but that's just off the top of my head. I have nothing against people coming from nothing and making good money or them paying to educate their children, but why should you get a VAT break for it? I'm not jealous one bit of people making money or aiming for the sky. The reality is that most don't and are a product of their surroundings and will never get that opportunity, there is plenty of luck involved not just hard work.

It's not technically a tax break, because almost no educational products have ever been subject to VAT. If I open a school teaching English to foreigners, for example, I don't have to charge VAT. Nor would any of the related books be subject to VAT.

What they really should have done instead of the VAT thing is remove charitable status from organisations that are clearly not charities (despite the odd token gesture) and tax their profits like any other business. To go back to the English school example, my EFL school would be VAT exempt as an education provider, but it would still be taxed on its profits as a business. I don't see why private fee-paying schools should be any different unless they are very clearly existing purely to help the less fortunate.

 

[Scottyboi]

£15k a year? Doesn't cover at any of the schools I live near. Those poor parents, grafting their asses off to send their kid(s) to 4th rate private school. I actually feel sorry for them.

When I worked there for a few weeks ripping up some floors, we were told a few city players had their kids there. On their site it says the fees need paying over 10 months so you only need £1500 disposable income a month not including dinner, bus fares, uniform or school trips!

 

[Kazzydeyna]

That’s £12K a year. A lot of people spend that on cars holidays and clothes.

So they can cut back on the cars, holidays and clothes than if they’re that arsed.
Why should hard working folk hand over their hard earned taxes to give a handout to benefit scrounges.
It’s all take take take with these tories. They love spending other people’s money but guard their own like Scrooge. Apart from the flash cars and holidays obvs.

Scrounges, spongers, and benefit whores.

Pay up or put your child in state school.

The free ride at the taxpayers expense is coming to an end. And not a day too soon.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

It's not technically a tax break, because almost no educational products have ever been subject to VAT. If I open a school teaching English to foreigners, for example, I don't have to charge VAT. Nor would any of the related books be subject to VAT.

That isn't completely true mate. Training courses that aren't covered within standard education are liable to VAT, this includes CPD courses for social workers. If it was a local authority paying for it they would claim it back. But it's still paid. And there's far more social benefit in training social workers to better recognise signs of neglect when there have been attempts to cover it up than there is in teaching Latin and obscure codes of 19th century football to Jonty and Tarquin.

What they really should have done instead of the VAT thing is remove charitable status from organisations that are clearly not charities (despite the odd token gesture) and tax their profits like any other business. To go back to the English school example, my EFL school would be VAT exempt as an education provider, but it would still be taxed on its profits as a business. I don't see why private fee-paying schools should be any different unless they are very clearly existing purely to help the less fortunate.

Far more complicated. There are some independent schools that do a good job of educating kids with special needs, that may not had their needs met by special schools in the state sector. I wouldn't want to see these schools abolished unless high standard replacements come in. I don't feel the same special treatment we give to schools for vulnerable children applies to schools for children of privileged backgrounds.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

That isn't completely true mate. Training courses that aren't covered within standard education are liable to VAT, this includes CPD courses for social workers. If it was a local authority paying for it they would claim it back. But it's still paid. And there's far more social benefit in training social workers to better recognise signs of neglect when there have been attempts to cover it up than there is in teaching Latin and obscure codes of 19th century football to Jonty and Tarquin.

I think the technical rule is something like "any course often taught in a school or college." So basically any school or university subject. But yeah, corporate training usually pays VAT.

Far more complicated. There are some independent schools that do a good job of educating kids with special needs, that may not had their needs met by special schools in the state sector. I wouldn't want to see these schools abolished unless high standard replacements come in. I don't feel the same special treatment we give to schools for vulnerable children applies to schools for children of privileged backgrounds.

Yeah, but these schools wouldn't have any issue getting charitable status because they could clearly show the social benefit that they create.