Vat on Independent school fees?

roubaixtuesday said:
This is just obviously not true.

Anecdotally you can look at the cars outside at pickup time.

Research is also available.

civitas.org.uk

Private schooling in Britain: a snapshot

Summary This briefing note provides a snap-shot of Britain’s independent schools, using data from the Independent Schools Council (ISC) annual census. The latest census (2022) shows that 544,316[1]…
civitas.org.uk civitas.org.uk

For the overwhelming majority of private school pupils, their parents are in the top 10 per cent income group.
Click to expand...

TBF being in top 10% has you on £67k (or more obviously). Hardly a kings ransom.
 
We have a low wage economy.

The people on genuinely big bucks are a tiny percentage of the population. Maybe the Duke of Westminster, MDs of FTSE 100 companies, premier league footballers, and various other extremely rich people.

Even the PM isn't paid much in the scheme of things, although he has a lot of perks.

All the more reason for worrying about those on average income or less, as opposed to those who are at least 'comfortable'. A huge chunk of the population is living on buttons and has either a tiny amount of savings or none at all.
 
BrianW said:
We have a low wage economy.

The people on genuinely big bucks are a tiny percentage of the population. Maybe the Duke of Westminster, MDs of FTSE 100 companies, premier league footballers, and various other extremely rich people.

Even the PM isn't paid much in the scheme of things, although he has a lot of perks.

All the more reason for worrying about those on average income or less, as opposed to those who are at least 'comfortable'. A huge chunk of the population is living on buttons and has either a tiny amount of savings or none at all.
Click to expand...

Once an average salary would afford an average home. Now you’ve got to be in the top 10% to afford one. Probably top 5% in all honesty (£82k IIRC). That’s crazy.
 
metalblue said:
Once an average salary would afford an average home. Now you’ve got to be in the top 10% to afford one. Probably top 5% in all honesty (£82k IIRC). That’s crazy.
Click to expand...
This genuinely astounds me. I had a debate with my prospective in laws the other week about this; I argued that, despite the older generation not having as much materially, it was much easier for them to lay the foundations for a life and a family. My missus and myself have a joint mortgage and we're comfortable. Suffice to say, we'd struggle on our own. Now I'm not an economist, nor do I know the dynamics of fluctuating house prices, but can somebody explain to me how the above statistics are allowed? In ten years time we'll be talking about a whole generation of people that will be priced out of a house; many won't even be able to rent. Surely there will be consequences, will the bubble burst? What measures can a government realistically take?
 
Blue and true said:
This genuinely astounds me. I had a debate with my prospective in laws the other week about this; I argued that, despite the older generation not having as much materially, it was much easier for them to lay the foundations for a life and a family. My missus and myself have a joint mortgage and we're comfortable. Suffice to say, we'd struggle on our own. Now I'm not an economist, nor do I know the dynamics of fluctuating house prices, but can somebody explain to me how the above statistics are allowed? In ten years time we'll be talking about a whole generation of people that will be priced out of a house; many won't even be able to rent. Surely there will be consequences, will the bubble burst? What measures can a government realistically take?
Click to expand...

Landlords are a big issue IMHO. Someone summed it up superbly on here the other week, buying houses they can’t afford and renting them to people who barely can (or words to that effect)

The government can do something here I think. I fancy they might in a year or two once they’ve got their feet properly under the table.
 
Blue and true said:
This genuinely astounds me. I had a debate with my prospective in laws the other week about this; I argued that, despite the older generation not having as much materially, it was much easier for them to lay the foundations for a life and a family. My missus and myself have a joint mortgage and we're comfortable. Suffice to say, we'd struggle on our own. Now I'm not an economist, nor do I know the dynamics of fluctuating house prices, but can somebody explain to me how the above statistics are allowed? In ten years time we'll be talking about a whole generation of people that will be priced out of a house; many won't even be able to rent. Surely there will be consequences, will the bubble burst? What measures can a government realistically take?
Click to expand...

Actually thinking about this a bit more I’m not convinced the government will legislate on multiple house ownership with a view to reduce house prices. It’s harmful to the treasury if they do (less stamp duty, less inheritance tax, capital gains etc). They will mess a little around the edges for sure, pledged to have developers build 1.5m houses, new rights for renters etc.

Ultimately the best strategy is for wages to rise - this creates growth and the tax take for the treasury increases, along with its costs reducing from reduced working tax credit payments.

In this regard I have no objections to public sector pay rises (it should make the private sector pay more) but creating wage growth in this way is slow without legislation (such as taxing profits more for companies whose workers receive working tax credits when working full time) they may be tempted, as a very quick win, to uplift the working tax credit but again I’m opposed to higher earners subsidising shit wages - make the companies pay. Plus I don’t see how working tax credit uplift would help people afford mortgages.
 
metalblue said:
Landlords are a big issue IMHO. Someone summed it up superbly on here the other week, buying houses they can’t afford and renting them to people who barely can (or words to that effect)

The government can do something here I think. I fancy they might in a year or two once they’ve got their feet properly under the table.
Click to expand...
Personally I would tax rental income at 80% on third and subsequent homes. No deductibles allowed (mortgage costs, insurance etc).
Make council tax payable by the landlord on all second and subsequent properties, at a growing rate (double for second property, triple for third etc).
Make a wealth tax on third and subsequent properties, payable at a rate of 20% of market value annually.
All above monies raised to be put into a national social house building and local infrastructure fund.

We have to tax people away from hoarding property. There a housing timebomb on the horizon in this country.

Remember the 70’s when homelessness was so rare they everybody in your town knew the handful of homeless people in their area they were so rare?
 
Kazzydeyna said:
Personally I would tax rental income at 80% on third and subsequent homes. No deductibles allowed (mortgage costs, insurance etc).
Make council tax payable by the landlord on all second and subsequent properties, at a growing rate (double for second property, triple for third etc).
Make a wealth tax on third and subsequent properties, payable at a rate of 20% of market value annually.
All above monies raised to be put into a national social house building and local infrastructure fund.

We have to tax people away from hoarding property. There a housing timebomb on the horizon in this country.

Remember the 70’s when homelessness was so rare they everybody in your town knew the handful of homeless people in their area they were so rare?
Click to expand...

That would certainly end the rental market overnight.

There is a case to have private rental properties in the UK. How large that needs to be is the main question (far too large now). The individual and state is handing money over like sweets - it’s not good for the government nor growth. We do need far far more social housing, Rayner won’t commit to how many of her 1.5m homes are going to be social - not even a ballpark figure. Currently we have about 1.7m people in privately rented homes that receive housing benefit. That is estimated to cost the state £70bn over next 5 years. Let me repeat that £70bn!!!!! Let’s borrow to invest in a huge building programme for these, the state will own the asset, it will create growth and finally will save the state money in terms of rents it pays out (and/or better control the rental market). I believe that right to buy should remain as it gives those renting social housing an opportunity to see the rent they paid return something to them and not just be lost money.

Student rental is another big issue, universities are saying they are struggling - so buy/build student accommodation for the full 3 years not just the first year. Then we can control the costs of going to university a bit more.

Overall my sense is that the private rental market has become a beast and is out of control with huge knock on effects and radical policy and investment is necessary - I don’t go as far as you do in terms of how radical that should be (your policy would be on the pile marked brutal) as I think there does need to be a private rental market of some description.
 
metalblue said:
That would certainly end the rental market overnight.

There is a case to have private rental properties in the UK. How large that needs to be is the main question (far too large now). The individual and state is handing money over like sweets - it’s not good for the government nor growth. We do need far far more social housing, Rayner won’t commit to how many of her 1.5m homes are going to be social - not even a ballpark figure. Currently we have about 1.7m people in privately rented homes that receive housing benefit. That is estimated to cost the state £70bn over next 5 years. Let me repeat that £70bn!!!!! Let’s borrow to invest in a huge building programme for these, the state will own the asset, it will create growth and finally will save the state money in terms of rents it pays out (and/or better control the rental market). I believe that right to buy should remain as it gives those renting social housing an opportunity to see the rent they paid return something to them and not just be lost money.

Student rental is another big issue, universities are saying they are struggling - so buy/build student accommodation for the full 3 years not just the first year. Then we can control the costs of going to university a bit more.

Overall my sense is that the private rental market has become a beast and is out of control with huge knock on effects and radical policy and investment is necessary - I don’t go as far as you do in terms of how radical that should be (your policy would be on the pile marked brutal) as I think there does need to be a private rental market of some description.
Click to expand...

Right to buy is a lovely idea in theory, but it's just caused so much damage to the housing market, and is a significant reason that the government is "handing money over like sweets".

Many people got discounts so high, that they added up to more than they'd ever paid in rent, while over 40% of right to buy homes are now being rented out by private landlords (in Brighton it's 86%!). A large proportion of those people will be on housing benefit, and in areas where there's high housing need, a lot of them are rented directly by the local councils, in order to house statutory homeless people on the waiting list, that mostly exists because there isn't enough social housing :/

If I was Rayner, I'd worry that if Labour built 1m Council Houses over the next decade, that a future Tory government would come in, say thank you very much, and then gain the political good will from the buyers at the expense of pretty much everyone.
 
bluenova said:
Right to buy is a lovely idea in theory, but it's just caused so much damage to the housing market, and is a significant reason that the government is "handing money over like sweets".

Many people got discounts so high, that they added up to more than they'd ever paid in rent, while over 40% of right to buy homes are now being rented out by private landlords (in Brighton it's 86%!). A large proportion of those people will be on housing benefit, and in areas where there's high housing need, a lot of them are rented directly by the local councils, in order to house statutory homeless people on the waiting list, that mostly exists because there isn't enough social housing :/

If I was Rayner, I'd worry that if Labour built 1m Council Houses over the next decade, that a future Tory government would come in, say thank you very much, and then gain the political good will from the buyers at the expense of pretty much everyone.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree it went too far and wasn’t well guard railed. Doesn’t mean we should chuck the baby out with the bathwater, just reimagine what that should look like.

We shouldn’t ignore the psychological aspect of it - If you know every time you pay rent some of that is going towards “a share of the home” (in theory) you’re going to want to take much better care of it.

I don’t disagree with the premise that Tory ideology would want them to sell the houses the moment they return to power - it needs some cross party discussions along with something enshrined in law that can’t be changed without something like 90% of the house agreeing.
 
metalblue said:
I don’t disagree it went too far and wasn’t well guard railed. Doesn’t mean we should chuck the baby out with the bathwater, just reimagine what that should look like.

We shouldn’t ignore the psychological aspect of it - If you know every time you pay rent some of that is going towards “a share of the home” (in theory) you’re going to want to take much better care of it.

I don’t disagree with the premise that Tory ideology would want them to sell the houses the moment they return to power - it needs some cross party discussions along with something enshrined in law that can’t be changed without something like 90% of the house agreeing.
Click to expand...

The problem was that it was mostly bathwater and very little baby.

There are certainly plenty of benefits to home ownership, but plenty of research to suggest that right to buy left very few people better off.

I sadly don't see how you could ever get a law that required what would be a huge supermajority. Most of the current Tories would have been in a government which supported extending it, so it's unlikely they'd be on board.
 
metalblue said:
That would certainly end the rental market overnight.

There is a case to have private rental properties in the UK. How large that needs to be is the main question (far too large now). The individual and state is handing money over like sweets - it’s not good for the government nor growth. We do need far far more social housing, Rayner won’t commit to how many of her 1.5m homes are going to be social - not even a ballpark figure. Currently we have about 1.7m people in privately rented homes that receive housing benefit. That is estimated to cost the state £70bn over next 5 years. Let me repeat that £70bn!!!!! Let’s borrow to invest in a huge building programme for these, the state will own the asset, it will create growth and finally will save the state money in terms of rents it pays out (and/or better control the rental market). I believe that right to buy should remain as it gives those renting social housing an opportunity to see the rent they paid return something to them and not just be lost money.

Student rental is another big issue, universities are saying they are struggling - so buy/build student accommodation for the full 3 years not just the first year. Then we can control the costs of going to university a bit more.

Overall my sense is that the private rental market has become a beast and is out of control with huge knock on effects and radical policy and investment is necessary - I don’t go as far as you do in terms of how radical that should be (your policy would be on the pile marked brutal) as I think there does need to be a private rental market of some description.
Click to expand...
Fair play mate. We don’t agree on much, or even this specific point, but you put forward your view coherently, fairly, and respectfully.
FWIW there’s a lot in what you say that I could get behind.
I like the idea of the state owning a decent housing stock again, it safeguards future generations as well as providing a ready income (and reducing benefit costs long term).
As for right to buy, I’m against it instinctively but that may be because of the way it was implemented the first time.
I’d be for it much more easily if there was a stipulation that councils had to replace each house sold with a replacement of equal quality and rent charges.
You make some good points which I may not agree with but I can respect your view and your choice to hold them.
 
Kazzydeyna said:
We have to tax people away from hoarding property. There a housing timebomb on the horizon in this country.
Click to expand...

If everything remains the same all those renters approaching retirement age will get housing benefit to help pay their rent ( thats you and me ) I suppose long term ( long after I am gone ) with a falling birth rate landlords will be falling over each other to attract the fewer renters that are out there - fucking bleak eh?
 
Kazzydeyna said:
Fair play mate. We don’t agree on much, or even this specific point, but you put forward your view coherently, fairly, and respectfully.
FWIW there’s a lot in what you say that I could get behind.
I like the idea of the state owning a decent housing stock again, it safeguards future generations as well as providing a ready income (and reducing benefit costs long term).
As for right to buy, I’m against it instinctively but that may be because of the way it was implemented the first time.
I’d be for it much more easily if there was a stipulation that councils had to replace each house sold with a replacement of equal quality and rent charges.
You make some good points which I may not agree with but I can respect your view and your choice to hold them.
Click to expand...

Appreciate the response mate. I agree with you on replacement of social housing, we’ve seen what happens when we don’t do it.

I’d be quite happy to see the right to buy being linked to slightly higher rents as well for those who wanted the option. That would strike me as fair for those who have no interesting in owning it (lower rents) and also the state who will receive a bit more money from those who do.

As you rightly point out the priority absolutely has to be the state holding decent housing stock again, in that sense the mechanics of right to buy is not the biggest thing to solve right now and I’d have no issue if they mothballed RTB until housing stock levels improved.

If we built every one of the 1.7m houses needed it’ll cost between £200bn-250bn, I’d estimate it would take about 25-30 years for that to become self funding (in the sense we are just moving money around the state system rather than paying it away to private landlords etc). If houses last what 75? years then it will be easily pay for itself and our grandkids or great grandkids will thank us.

Get local builders to help build them as well… not just paying the monolithic home builders. This creates local growth. Then the government can help distribute new homes and the associate growth opportunities across the country. It will also be an opportunity to revitalise whole communities and high streets.
 
10,000 kids from private schools back into the over stretched state school system already And this is just the start…
 
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