To think putting vat on private healthcare when many people use it because the NHS won't treat them is monstrously cruel

Maybe something actually readable?

Yes but it also ruled that it was discriminatory and breached the 2 Articles of HRA it was brought under. Here you go:

As I posted before the net amount of cash raised has been nil, there is now more pressure on state schools, the only winners are those who didn't want others to have private education because they couldn't have it themselves. It is the epitome of cutting off your noise to spite your face.

I don't I'm happy speculating. If Labour want to shut the down the speculation they could give a steer as to what they are planning, if they don't want to they will have to put up with growing press speculation and having to rule out ideas one by one.

Don't you think of yourself as an entitled elite?

You certainly are entitled elite. You're here complaining, crying, like typical people who have too much entitlement at the elite level, believing everything you say is correct and everyone else is wrong. You can't think of solutions to problems without creating issues for others, just because they don't do what you want them to do.

People who support the idea of taxing private healthcare should also consider why other, far more luxurious items shouldn’t be taxed. Once you start taxing and penalizing those who use private healthcare, it seems logical to apply the same principle to everything else in life. If taxing private healthcare users is seen as fair, then the same logic should be universally applied, taxing any luxury that requires payment.

The country needs money, so tax everything, including food. Food is a luxury, and imported food is even more of a luxury. Education of any kind is a luxury, including university fees, higher education, further education colleges, vocational courses, tutoring, and online schools or courses. Any imported goods are pure luxury. The list is endless. Use your imaginative mind to think about how much money the Labour government could earn for the country if they taxed everything.

I’m sure the Labour politicians and their supporters will shield themselves from taxes. They’re part of the privileged elite, just like the elite on the other side. Neither is any better than the other.

You want her to leak her own budget before budget day?

The court ruled that the policy was lawful. Which is why it hasn't been overturned.

Reeves could stop all the speculation today if she wanted to. All she needs to do tell which taxes she is going to go up to pay for her spending spree. But she's put it off as long as she possibly could.

Edit: sorry, I think I misread this.

People often say we should be more like Scandinavia so 25% seems the way forward.

Ideologically speaking, since that’s Labour’s forte, VAT should definitely be charged on private healthcare, it would make sense for there to be parity across all optional services: healthcare, education and further education - all of these are choices - seems to be the MN consensus. While they are at it, I hope they cut UC (waste of money), drop the triple lock and fuel allowance, too. If the UK is broke, everyone should help repair it, tax is for the many not the few!

Wait until Reform get in - I think you’ll spontaneously combust then.

And you believe drippy boy Streeting? Just because he’s said it won’t happen, isn’t worth anything.

There are lies, damned lies and Labour Politicians.

Except it was the people who were saying labour wouldn't introduce a tax on education who now not sure that labour won't introduce a tax on health.

If you do read the thread you will find all the others things ministers have said won't happen then they did a short while after. We all know tax hikes are coming until the government figure out where we will have to just guess.

That must be awful. But the solution surely isn't to make private more expensive and make the lists for the NHS even longer. The reform policy of a tax subsidy would probably encourage some on the list to go private, shortening the list for everyone else.

@twistyizzy no blame mentioned in my post. If you earn 150k your economic interests are different from someone who earns 25k.

Tax cuts that favour the well paid reduce funding for services available for the lower paid and do nothing to decrease the burden on public services that the well paid don’t use like education and healthcare.

They also do nothing to reduce state funding of in work benefits to top up low wages in order to afford high cost of living and housing.

I object to the reframing of private education and private healthcare concerns of increasing costs due to the application of VAT as primarily concerns of parents with DC with SEN or patients who were failed by the state system as they are the minority of users who are over represented for political or economic gain by the majority of wealthy users of private education and healthcare.

This is not to say that the public service is adequate. It is not. Navigating the system is complex, can be expensive and is definitely stressful. I had 2 DC with severe SEN needs and was forced to go to tribunal to get both of their needs met. My DM was finally awarded CHC when end of life care had already been initiated. In all of these cases funding of appropriate education and healthcare was an issue but money was thrown away on blocking access.

The public sector needs to act holistically rather than allocating spending to different pots in order to recognise that early intervention is cost effective. Eg the education department saves Y but then the LA picks up 100 x Y for ECHP, tribunal and indi SS and then the DWP picks up 1000 x Y if the young person ends up on ESA/UC indefinitely and a parent also becomes economically inactive to be their carer.

We have gone well beyond simplistic tax cuts for the rich having any hope of solving complex social issues.

Exactly.
BBC News - Streeting rules out VAT on private healthcare - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0knr2dmn4mo

But what about people who can’t access loans and finances to go private? My mum had a test come back 350 when the result was anything over 250 needed immediate intervention but with the nhs lists my mum decided to pay private - despite no other symptoms other than the test.

i had the same test due to blood in my stools, major stomach pain and not being able to eat without agony. My same test came back as almost 2000. I’m stuck on the waiting list not knowing if it’s cancer or if it’s anything else to enable me a decent quality of life.

people who go private have access to those finances so they can pay everything it entails. Yes there should be more of a fees able middle ground but it’s disgusting that unless you have money you’re left on the waiting list with health problems that could be killing you but not getting that treatment

Yes!

Er court clearly said it was discriminatory and breached HR under the 2 Articles it was brought under. So yes, in that sense it is unlawful

I don’t support VAT on either.

Thing is though, having put VAT on the education of autistic kids like my ds, and had not many people stand up to say that’s not fair, I’m actually inclined to say, well - nobody stood up for me, so crack on and VAT whatever you like and I won’t stand up for anyone. Just like they didn’t stand up for me.

No, it's a complete strawman. People who a year ago were assuring everyone that VAT on private schools would never happen, and then 9 months ago were assuring everyone that VAT on private schools was unlawful and would be overturned in the courts by February half term, are now assuring everyone that Labour is about to start charging VAT on higher education, medical insurance and food.

It's a classic FUD tactic.

https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/record-farm-closures-amid-iht-reforms-and-rising-costs

https://londonlovesbusiness.com/labours-disastrous-tax-policies-closes-more-than-6000-farms/

To be fair, I wonder how much of the support came from families with kids with SEND. Especially those children for whom there is no suitable state provision.