Vat on Independent school fees?

[I'm With Stupid]

So? What you have said there proves the reasons they pay fees and how the govt - mostly the product of fee paying schools - don't care about my kids in the way I did

I know. And that means that it's probably wishful thinking that someone who has spent 5 years in a private school won't qualify for a grammar school on academic grounds. For the most part, of course. I'm sure there are plenty of private schools that take your money and genuinely don't offer anything particularly better than state schools educationally.

ETA: I just realised you think I was responding to you, rather than the Twitter comment. Sorry.

Having said that, it's also overwhelmingly true that private school students are there because of the wealth of their parents. Sure some are there on scholarships, but most aren't. Hence the whole controversy about their charitable status.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

It's quite tricky to force everyone to pay their own tuition fees by getting into massive debt and then try and claim the money back you've "paid to train" them. The vast majority of teachers get fuck all help from the government to complete their training and so owe them nothing in return, I'm afraid.

It isn't about compensating the teachers, it is about compensating the state. Many of the teachers that are currently employed in private schools today, went to Uni and teacher training when this country took the view that keeping further education free was an investment in the nation's future, and not - as today - as a means to ensure kids from poorer backgrounds start their working lives saddled with £30-£60k debt before they've even begun. All whilst the Universities are becoming richer and richer on the backs of the poorest.
Also if a private school takes a teacher from the state sector who has 20 years experience they are in effect taking a good teacher (presumably) from a state school, 'cherry picking' if you like, at zero cost to themselves. That teacher has built up 20 years classroom experience at state school level, at a significant cost to the state. In my view, if a private school then 'poaches' him/her, they should pay a 'transfer fee' to the LEA equal to that teacher's entire earnings whilst he/she was employed by the state. Adjusted for inflation obviously on top. Either that. or employ NQT's direct from University and pay to give them that vital experience themselves.

I'm sick of watching these benefit whores sponging off the state. It has to stop. They need to pay their way and if they are unable to, then little Oscar or Jemima will just have to go to the local state school. I guarantee that within a year of a few dozen entitled parents in each local authority catchment area sending their kids to state school pressure will be put on the government to finally invest in state schools properly. Currently the poorest in society are subsidising wealthy spongers and that has to stop.
Same principal with private healthcare. Raise VAT on private health fees to 100% and make it a legal requirement for private health companies to re-imburse the NHS in full for the cost of the experience thair employees gained at the expense of tax payers.

Dirty, filthy, benefit spongers.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

It isn't about compensating the teachers, it is about compensating the state. Many of the teachers that are currently employed in private schools today, went to Uni and teacher training when this country took the view that keeping further education free was an investment in the nation's future, and not - as today - as a means to ensure kids from poorer backgrounds start their working lives saddled with £30-£60k debt before they've even begun. All whilst the Universities are becoming richer and richer on the backs of the poorest.
Also if a private school takes a teacher from the state sector who has 20 years experience they are in effect taking a good teacher (presumably) from a state school, 'cherry picking' if you like, at zero cost to themselves. That teacher has built up 20 years classroom experience at state school level, at a significant cost to the state. In my view, if a private school then 'poaches' him/her, they should pay a 'transfer fee' to the LEA equal to that teacher's entire earnings whilst he/she was employed by the state. Adjusted for inflation obviously on top. Either that. or employ NQT's direct from University and pay to give them that vital experience themselves.

I'm sick of watching these benefit whores sponging off the state. It has to stop. They need to pay their way and if they are unable to, then little Oscar or Jemima will just have to go to the local state school. I guarantee that within a year of a few dozen entitled parents in each local authority catchment area sending their kids to state school pressure will be put on the government to finally invest in state schools properly. Currently the poorest in society are subsidising wealthy spongers and that has to stop.
Same principal with private healthcare. Raise VAT on private health fees to 100% and make it a legal requirement for private health companies to re-imburse the NHS in full for the cost of the experience thair employees gained at the expense of tax payers.

Dirty, filthy, benefit spongers.

I mean I don't disagree with the sentiments (some of them), but the idea that the state is 'owed' something because they employed a teacher for 20 years is ridiculous. If you employ someone for 20 years, what you're paying for is 20 years of their labour. You're not doing them a favour and training them up. They do 5 days a year of in-service training, and a good chunk of that will be training for particular policies rather than actually improving teaching. Should we extend this to all sectors? If you work in the civil service and then take a job for a private company, should the private company be required to pay a 'transfer fee' for all of the valuable experience and training they offered you?

It's also worth mentioning that tuition fees were first brought in in 1998, so even a teacher with 20 years experience is likely to have paid a chunk of that training themselves, and anyone with 12 or less is likely to have paid the full amount themselves at 9 grand a year.

If you want to pay for teachers' training (or nurses') in full in exchange for a guarantee of service, then I'd be all for that. But even when that sort of thing happens, it's still usually only capped at 2 or 3 years. Nobody is demanding you spend your entire career working for them because they gave you 30 grand for training. What you're asking for is for state workers to be trapped into working their entire careers for the state, and more trapped the longer they stay. And you apparently value 5 days of in-house training at more than the cost of an entire degree. You're basically saying that a teacher with 20 years experience should have close to a million pound buyout of their contract, because the education sector give them 5 days of shitty training a year. It's ludicrous.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

I mean I don't disagree with the sentiments (some of them), but the idea that the state is 'owed' something because they employed a teacher for 20 years is ridiculous. If you employ someone for 20 years, what you're paying for is 20 years of their labour. You're not doing them a favour and training them up. They do 5 days a year of in-service training, and a good chunk of that will be training for particular policies rather than actually improving teaching. Should we extend this to all sectors? If you work in the civil service and then take a job for a private company, should the private company be required to pay a 'transfer fee' for all of the valuable experience and training they offered you?

It's also worth mentioning that tuition fees were first brought in in 1998, so even a teacher with 20 years experience is likely to have paid a chunk of that training themselves, and anyone with 12 or less is likely to have paid the full amount themselves at 9 grand a year.

If you want to pay for teachers' training (or nurses') in full in exchange for a guarantee of service, then I'd be all for that. But even when that sort of thing happens, it's still usually only capped at 2 or 3 years. Nobody is demanding you spend your entire career working for them because they gave you 30 grand for training. What you're asking for is for state workers to be trapped into working their entire careers for the state, and more trapped the longer they stay. And you apparently value 5 days of in-house training at more than the cost of an entire degree. You're basically saying that a teacher with 20 years experience should have close to a million pound buyout of their contract, because the education sector give them 5 days of shitty training a year. It's ludicrous.

No. Im saying that in a career like teaching, the 20 years isnt all training. Of course it isnt. But it IS all experience. And that is what makes the hypothetical 20 year teacher an attractive proposition for the private school.
Now, if that private school is going to take that teacher from the state sector, and employ them in a tax payer-subsidised, for-profit business (which is what private schools are) then they should have to compensate the state sector for the benefit of that experience which they are using to make a profit from, at the tax payers expense.
In essence, the teacher is being taken from a not for profit public service and moving into a for-profit business at the expense of children who lose his teaching ability AND have to sit back and watch as he/she is replaced, most probably by an inexperienced NQT.
Im not suggesting it should be outlawed and that teachers have to be handcuffed to the state sector for the entirety of their career. Im simply suggesting that proper compensation should be payed. I think thats more than fair.

As for the rest of the civil service, i simply think education and health are more special cases. If a civil servant from, for example, the MOJ wants to pack it in and move to Tesco, id say fill your boots.

Im genuinely tired of seeing hard working tax payers being ripped off by people sponging off them and it has to stop.

I can guarantee that 99.9% of parents screaming and gnashing their teeth at the proposed removal of their excessive benefits will all have large screen TVs, drink coffee several times a week, have netflix and sky tv subscriptions, and many of them will also have foreign holidays and enjoy the odd bottle of wine. All things thst can be cut back to pay the new fees. But they dont want to.

Lazy.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Im not suggesting it should be outlawed and that teachers have to be handcuffed to the state sector for the entirety of their career. Im simply suggesting that proper compensation should be payed. I think thats more than fair.

But you're not though, are you? You said that they should be 'compensated' to the tune of their full salary for their entire career plus interest. That was your definition of 'proper' compensation. Basically the private school shouldn't just pay compensation, they should pay their entire salary for their whole career to date, as if the state sector hasn't had 20 years of quality teaching for their money.

You're acting like teaching is some sort of extended apprenticeship scheme where they're not only getting paid 35 grand a year, but also getting another 35 grand in 'value' from the experience of being there. Although the person with 10 years experience doing exactly the same job and attending the same training sessions is somehow getting 45 grand of value from it. You've proposed a system where a teacher with 20 years experience would have something approaching an 800 grand buyout if they wanted to go into the private sector. What is that if not handcuffing them to the job? You're basically forcing a career change for anyone who wants to leave state teaching (unless you'd also want compensation if they also went to work for a private publisher writing materials). It's the most anti-worker thing I've ever heard.

And while we're on it, is the UK going to 'compensate' India and the Philippines for all of the doctors and nurses they take every year?

If you want to see private schools banned, just say that. They do it in Finland. But then you'd probably see a similar exodus to international schools or schools in America or Australia.

Charitable status absolutely should disappear. They're in no way charities. VAT is another question, because obviously private education is a luxury, but equally, we don't typically levy VAT on any educational product, AFAIK. If I came to the UK to study English in a language school, that would be a luxury that many of my peers couldn't afford, and would be provided by a profit-making school, but it wouldn't attract VAT because educational products and training courses typically don't.

 

[urban genie]

Not sure how it's politics of envy making them pay their dues like state schools

such a stupid lazy playground term too, used to stop reason conversation by claiming jealousy.

It's funny when those poorest say they are struggling to buy food the tories say well don't go on holiday or have sky tv, yet if they have to pay extra for a private school they chooose to send their kids, if the school passes on he VAT in the fees they crow it means giving up a new car or other luxuries.

The School are being charged VAT on full fees is media bollocks too, all private schools will be able to offset charging full VAT due to expenditure that can claim VAT recovery payments and also many services included in the school fee (accomodation, transport and welfare provisions) will be VAT exempt.

Saying every parent will have a 20% hike on school fees is a way of telling the facts to cause maximum outrage amongst those affected, more likely they will see 10-15% increase in fees and even still some schools could reduce that by absorbing the costs in other measures and reducing fees in the first place

 

[oldius]

Since when is a business that charges £40,000 per annum, per user, a charity?
Since when does the purchase of luxury goods or services not include VAT?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Do grammar schools still exist?

Of course. My son is at Sale. Trafford has Alty Boys, Alty Girls, Sale Grammar, Loretto, Flixton, Stretford and Urmston Grammar. There is St Ambrose.

 

[threespires]

I think GDM nailed it earlier, it's a discretionary professional service aimed at delivering a competitive advantage and as such VAT should be paid.

If you want to get more philosophical about it, Pierre Bourdieu's work on the three types of capital, and particularly social capital, is highly relevant here. Anyone seeking to understand why such an exemption exists and why people would fight hard to perpetuate it could do worse than read him. I'd personally prefer such places didn't exist as I think they are typically quite harmful to society. As a minimum, a country that has even the slightest pretensions to equality of opportunity should be removing charitable status.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think GDM nailed it earlier, it's a discretionary professional service aimed at delivering a competitive advantage and as such VAT should be paid.

If you want to get more philosophical about it, Pierre Bourdieu's work on the three types of capital, and particularly social capital, is highly relevant here. Anyone seeking to understand why such an exemption exists and why people would fight hard to perpetuate it could do worse than read him. I'd personally prefer such places didn't exist as I think they are typically quite harmful to society. As a minimum, a country that has even the slightest pretensions to equality of opportunity should be removing charitable status.

I don’t know enough about the subject to comment on the charitable status part, and there may be bona fide reasons for that, and certainly I can see why bringing the profit motive further into the equation could possibly be a bad thing, but that doesn’t alter the fact that the exemption from VAT is completely unjustifiable, given, as you’ve said, the manifest advantage such an education is likely to confer.