Vat on Independent school fees?

Brewster's millions said:
Quoting opinion polls and then making broad sweeping statements about people in the media - a bit contradictory isn’t it?

On a broader point I would say that a policy proposal doesn’t have to be front and centre of public opinion, or indeed generate any strong reaction from the general public in the first instance, for it to be regarded as controversial.

This particular policy is controversial because it’s unclear whether it will actually prove a net positive for the public finances. Another, related controversial element is that parents who opt for private education are reducing the burden on the state while not receiving any offset in their taxation, but now face additional costs. The arguments for and against on this thread, which in most cases make fair points, also suggest it’s a controversial issue even if it’s not prompting the same sort of debate across the general public.
Click to expand...
The opinion polling shows that most people don't consider it to be a particularly controversial topic.

It's not a sweeping statement about the media.

It's factually correct that public school pupils are significantly over-represented in senior politics and senior media positions.

It's also a fact that people with an experience of something care more about it, or give it more importance than people who have no connection.

I understand your point that something can be controversial even if only for a few people, but in the context of a potential incoming government policy, it is not controversial. The ticket criteria for the Madrid game is controversial amongst a subset of City fans. On this forum it's going to get a lot more attention, with lots of people sharing strong opinions. At Swindon Women's Institute, it's probably a bit of a non issue :)

As far as I can see, the people on this thread who are arguing against VAT are mostly either public school educated, or have kids at public school. It is controversial for them in the same way that it is being overplayed in the media - because they are invested in the issue. Given the numbers of kids in private education, they are not exactly representative.
 
oldius said:
Of course it is a luxury, though I respect that not everyone who chooses to privately educate their child bathes in pound notes every night.
Regardless, the question is should VAT be applied to fees and I can see no justification for private school fees to be exempt.
As for charitable status, I think that is a nonsense.
Click to expand...

I’m opposed to anything that makes it less attainable to people however I think it’s a bit of a storm in a tea cup.

The government are unlikely to gain anything like the money they suggest - I think Labour will be happy if they can make it stick and Starmer can show he really is a leftie after all and the schools/parents will be happy if it doesn’t hurt.

Ultimately schools have the power here IMHO, if the worst came to the worst and they were in danger of losing kids to make themselves unviable then these schools could make everyone self employed, treat everything as private tuition (this is exempt from VAT) and just act as a billing service provider thus exempting themselves from VAT. Good luck challenging that HMRC!!
 
If someone wants to send their kids to a private school then good luck but why should the taxpayer subsidise it ? If they can’t afford the VAT then either get a better job or don’t send them .
 
carlosthejackal said:
If someone wants to send their kids to a private school then good luck but why should the taxpayer subsidise it ? If they can’t afford the VAT then either get a better job or don’t send them .
Click to expand...
Parents whose kids go to private schools also pay towards state schools through their taxes. Therefore the taxpayer isn't really subsidising it.
 
KnaresboroughBlue said:
Parents whose kids go to private schools also pay towards state schools through their taxes. Therefore the taxpayer isn't really subsidising it.
Click to expand...
It's surely a bit more complex?

I'd argue you can only really look at it on it's own, as there are plenty of things paid for by taxes that you might not use, but you don't get a discount for not using them.

And if you're paying for a private education because you believe it gives your kids an advantage in society over state school kids, then is that really something the state should be giving a tax break to encourage?

The fact that ex-public school pupils are over-represented at our top universities and many of the most important jobs in the country, could easily be seen as a problem for society. How much does it cost us to have so many of the most important jobs going to people on the basis of whose parents had more money?

Perhaps their should be a double rate of VAT to compensate the taxpayer for adding such a huge inefficiency into the economy? ;)
 
I'm With Stupid said:
It's sort of irrelevant anyway. Things aren't zero-rated because they're "essential" items. Aircraft are zero rated. Gambling is zero-rated. Meanwhile electricity, mobility aids and sanitary items are rated at 5%. Prams are 20%. Stationary is 20%.

Private schools are zero-rated because education is zero-rated, not because they're "not a luxury." They absolutely are a luxury, just like private health insurance, in my opinion (which is also zero-rated).
Click to expand...

Besides, choosing to pay for something that is available for free is the definition of luxury isn’t it?
 
bluenova said:
Perhaps their should be a double rate of VAT to compensate the taxpayer for adding such a huge inefficiency into the economy? ;)
Click to expand...
Or perhaps those whose children use private schools could be exempt from contributing towards state schools ;-)
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Do you think it should?
Click to expand...

I don’t think it should waste time on token gestures and Labour well know it is else they’d be going after the charitable status as well. It’s not serious legislation but rather to appease a wing of the party and show how left Starmer is….honest guv.

Fundamentally I don’t think good education should be less attainable, but rather more attainable. I’d much rather hear them talk about tax rises to increase the education budget by 30% than this nonsense. Make private schools unviable through competition.
 
bluenova said:
For most careers it probably doesn't make a huge difference.

For the ones with power; politics, senior lawyers, senior civil servants, journalists - it's "curious" how much of a difference it makes.
Click to expand...
Those that enter politics just compounds my point, no? They're not in their positions because they are intellectual titans, they are there because they have the asterisk (Eton or equivalent) next to their names. The prestige of their education slickened their career traction, not the quality of the teaching they received. Someone brought up Johnson; the perfect example. Ironically enough, if he had been state educated I think he'd have turned out a much better, emotionally intelligent human being. Sound parenting is key; with a foundation of sound parenting any child's learning can be entrusted to the state.

On the matter of taxing these private institutions, it would only be worthy if every penny taxed was redistributed to state education, and not stashed away in the coffers for "austerity" or some vanity project a decade down the road. Suffice to say, I wouldn't hold hope of such redistribution happening.
 
metalblue said:
Bar the last sentence you’re spot on IMHO
Click to expand...
Maybe "most" was unfair. But if I were to ever have kids and the wherewithal to pay for their private education, I'd rather put my 30k pa in a trust fund ready for adulthood. A privately educated child could go on to become a world-leading scientist, or a coke-addled banker that ends up homeless; in the instance of the latter, ~250k being available as a safety net is much better than ~250k pissed away on private education.
 
Blue and true said:
Those that enter politics just compounds my point, no? They're not in their positions because they are intellectual titans, they are there because they have the asterisk (Eton or equivalent) next to their names. The prestige of their education slickened their career traction, not the quality of the teaching they received. Someone brought up Johnson; the perfect example. Ironically enough, if he had been state educated I think he'd have turned out a much better, emotionally intelligent human being. Sound parenting is key; with a foundation of sound parenting any child's learning can be entrusted to the state.

On the matter of taxing these private institutions, it would only be worthy if every penny taxed was redistributed to state education, and not stashed away in the coffers for "austerity" or some vanity project a decade down the road. Suffice to say, I wouldn't hold hope of such redistribution happening.
Click to expand...
Absolutely - I wasn't totally joking when I posted earlier that private education is actually a burden, which the taxpayer should be compensated generously for. Not sure how many billions the private education sector should be paying us in compensation for a fuckwit like Boris Johnson, but not sure any amount was worth it :/

On your other point, a few years on, it will become impossible to say where any money is spent, but the introduction of the policy is specifically matched up with spending in schools.

I wouldn't be surprised if the more ambitious targets for the revenue raised are actually spent before the money starts coming in. Right now, it's just a convenient way of Labour making promises to increase state education funding, without the Tories telling everyone their tax will go up.
 
Do private schools teach home economics?

I feel education went to shit when we stopped teaching kids how to darn socks, change plugs, make fire and basic cooking skills
 
urban genie said:
Do private schools teach home economics?

I feel education went to shit when we stopped teaching kids how to darn socks, change plugs, make fire and basic cooking skills
Click to expand...
I left school in 1968.
Was never taught any of those.
So just when were they part of the curriculum?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top