Labour, private schools VAT and universities

[BloodyHellKen]

Following on from the thread about Labour, private schools and VAT please could someone explain to me why we shouldn't be concerned that a Labour govt wouldn't remove tax exemption from universities also as they are also VAT exempt in the same way private schools are.

I'm not personally worried about VAT being added onto private school fees and I recognise arguments for and against but the possibility of VAT being added onto a university education does really concern me.

Anyone?

I'm a Tufton Street shill. I must tell my husband, he'll be shocked 😂😂😂

I actually work in the creative industries and promise I don't shill for anyone other than our cat.

Yes, it was me that pointed our tutors take cash in hand. Ours all did probably for the reasons you mention.

My understanding is that universities can neither charge VAT nor reclaim VAT at present, so on eg building works, they pay the price plus VAT and cannot reclaim it, whilst eg a pizza chain would be able to reclaim VAT on refurbishments.

I am not 100% sure on this, and it may also be possible for universities to structure subisidiaries that provide VAT-able services (eg hiring out rooms for conferences) and also pay for VAT-able items.

I was in first/second year at university when the general election of 1997 took place. I got a leaflet from Labour saying that if elected, they wouldn't introduce tuition fees. They got elected and they introduced tuition fees. I understand that the policy had been previously cooked up by the conservatives and that Labour "just" implemented it.

Politicians are liars. There is no guarantee what any of them will or won't do. I don't vote these days because I refuse to give my vote to a liar. They are all liars, just wearing different colour ties or rosettes.

Why would any electorate want a state loans system for 14 years of a privileged education that costs more per year than many salaries and cause so much damage? Bit of a stretch from £9k worth of fees for 3 years that opens up higher education for all.

I assume your post is in reply to mine @Wi1dRo5e ?

Why wouldn't any electorate not want the option? Some parents might welcome it. The loan companies would undoubtedly want it and would benefit, the same way they benefit from uni student loans.

You might as well have asked 'Why would any electorate want a state loans system for 3 years of a privileged education that costs more per year than many salaries' prior to uni's charging fees.

Give it a moment’s thought - if they deny that this mad idea is a policy you will immediately get loads of people saying it must be or why would they deny? It’s the political equivalent of asking them if they’ve stopped beating their wife.
it isn’t a policy. It’s not been discussed. Stop suggesting it might be, based on absolutely nothing.

What is ‘combative and nasty’ about their pitch?
And the ‘risks’ you mention are made up nonsense.

I agree, IMO many politicians of all persuasions do not play with a straight hand.

And to @DogInATent this thread is not about criticising Labour. It is about raising a personal concern that has occurred to me and it just happens to be on the back of a proposed Labour policy. One which they say they will implement.

If the Conservative or Lib Dem had proposed the same policy I would be concerned they were about to start changing the law re: VAT and uni fees as well.

I was in first/second year at university when the general election of 1997 took place. I got a leaflet from Labour saying that if elected, they wouldn't introduce tuition fees. They got elected and they introduced tuition fees. I understand that the policy had been previously cooked up by the conservatives and that Labour "just" implemented it.

I was as well and had a younger sibling wanting to go felt like a betray though parental redundancy did mean they didn't end up paying fees.

I do worry about uni funding plans because it will directly affect us but private schools seem like a distraction from a very uneven state sector.

This is also a troupe. You remember the stabbing of that black girl in Croydon. Private schooled. Mother worked as an NHS children's nurse, worked and saved, to get her daughter a better start in life. Not that privileged then.

BloodyHellKen

Because private education is known to cause so much damage and not all loans are paid back which costs the taxpayer. Which parents can guarantee they will be able to pay back 14 years of a very expensive fees( average cost of £20k per year for day), and fund their old age, private health and rising cost of living and housing?Who can guarantee they’ll even have a job? Why on earth would the taxpayer want to take on that risk and expense for something so damaging? Ludicrous.

@cardibach - it's cynical and combative because it's based more on class war prejudice than the facts. Take a look at this and the threat to a small niche Welsh speaking school - most schools aren't Eton and Harrow and the parents are ordinary. DP and I are both public sector earning the national average wage.

amp.theguardian.com/education/2023/may/31/small-independent-schools-on-labour-private-school-tax-policy

You keep saying it’s ‘cynical’ or ‘nasty’ or ‘combative’ or based in ‘hate’. You haven’t justified those words though. It’s a policy you don’t like, so you think it’s those things. I’ve worked in independent schools. Everyone knows they aren’t all Elton or Harrow and I’m not sure why you are suggesting they don’t. It’s a purchase which requires above average purchasing power. It’s also an area which arguably adversely affects state education - for example the state trains teachers and then they get jobs at independent schools (there’s a whole other debate about things in state education which make independent schools attractive to teachers, but even so…).

C'mon @cardibach, I hold my hands up to some hyperbole but you are being purposefully obtuse. It's red meat to the left who want to see schools closed down and children's education disrupted. They could phase it in, they're not going to- why not soften the blow for the sake of young people already impacted by Covid? No, with all the issues facing the country they are prioritising this. Shameful.

3 reasons

1. Because the schools policy is based upon resentment and as a sizable portion of the population do some university education at some point it is not going ot have a resentful group of people to dupe.
2. Universities get lots of subsidy from the government already, so adding VAT will simply increase teed for subsidy.
3. The Schools policy is going to be a mess so that will kill any idea of applying it anywhere else.

I would be more concerned about the attempt by an incompetent bunch of politicians to design the policy to hit private schools that actually ends up hitting: some forms of tutoring, after schools care, residential education activities for children, etc.

Then worry about the impact of the price elasticity of demand for private schooling and the possibility of disruption to local schools if there is dumping of pupils into the state sector.

Universities are not where you should be worried.

Again with the emotional reaction. I’m on the left. I don’t want children’s education disrupted. Nobody does. Even after working in a couple of independents (maybe especially after…) I am uncomfortable with people buying smaller classes, better facilities etc for their children.

@Wi1dRo5e

A lot of strange claims:
“Because private education is known to cause so much damage”
A vague claim with a need for some substance.

“average cost of £20k per year for day”
Not according to the figures that Labour are citing to defend their claim. Which says the average of all schools is £15,200. So day fees would be less.

@cardibach
“It’s also an area which arguably adversely affects state education - for example the state trains teachers and then they get jobs at independent schools”

Is this the only “adversely affects” claim?
One of the issue with independent schools is that they don’t require teachers to have QTS, so not all the schools are even hiring those who would be able to work in the state sector. Also, those who choose to work in the private sector are not suddenly going to switch to the state sector. State schools are often reluctant to hire teachers who have been in Private Schools for long periods as teaching the state sector is far harder, many may opt for alternative careers.

The shortage of teachers in state schools has far more to do with the sector being unable to retain staff who are recruited due to working conditions being so poor and later career pay being competitive. Putting a but more water in to colander doesn’t stop the water leaking.
What private schools do is expose what a raw deal the staff in the state sector get… Suddenly it look much clearer why governments may be keen to not have a private sector to show up their failures.

"I am uncomfortable with people buying smaller classes, better facilities etc for their children."

Why?

If it was 60% of parents I could understand, a majority not caring about the minority experience could develop. But if it is 7% across the population and 15% at 6th form you aren't getting that effect.

@cardibach for give my emotions, I'm upset that my son is preoccupied with this threat when I'd like him to be focussed on his future. As a 2nd generation immigrant I have worked hard to provide what I can to help him have better prospects.

Locally it could be a nightmare. Now obviously, a lot of families will continue to scrimp and save to stay in the private sector. Many of the parents are in IT, doctors, nurses, pilots, engineers, local business owners. They are not internationals, nor uber wealthy. A lot of the same type of parents send their children to the excellent local state schools. However, our local town has 3000 private school pupils over three schools, and NO extra spaces in those local, good, state schools, because you have to live next door to them, and also buy million pounds houses!

“average cost of £20k per year for day”
Not according to the figures that Labour are citing to defend their claim. Which says the average of all schools is £15,200. So day fees would be less.

No - that’s the average day school fees. The IFS report excludes the boarding element (average boarding fees are close to £35k when you add the day rate and boarding rate).

I am uncomfortable with people buying smaller classes, better facilities etc for their children.

I do understand the discomfort but then if we were richer we could have bought in the good catchment and my kids would have had a vastly different and better state secondary school experience and I suspect better exam results - as class disruptions and teacher shortages have plagued those years for them.

I knew someone who children's cousin were at the good state school - they had things like orchestra and Dof E awards schemes on tap just had to turn up to have - while at our DC school there was nothing.

The focus on private schooling detracts from differing standards in state sector - and lets face it people who can buy small class sizes and better facilities will always have more options for their kids.

Those are all excellent points thank you for your reply.

But as our children will have almost left secondary education by the time Labour are in govt (should they win the next GE) it's any potential effect of Uni's that I'm personally most interested in for obvious reasons.

Obviously that doesn't detract from what you say being excellent points.

The focus on private schooling detracts from differing standards in state sector - and lets face it people who can buy small class sizes and better facilities will always have more options for their kids.

I think this is very true. The only way you could stop wealthier parents helping their children succeed is to remove all child from the parents at birth, something that no one in their right mind would think was a good idea.

Even if private schools were all shut down tomorrow wealthier parents will always be able to afford tutors, more time (possibly because not both of them work full time), more trips to educational settings etc . Also, generally wealthier people are more likely to have had children later and have degrees so are better placed to provide academic support as well. Obviously these are all broad generalisations but they are backed up with data.

Lie is not fair.