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?

Not all children who attend private school go for 14 years. In fact none of the ones I know, including our youngest have. Most seem to go for secondary only so only 5 years and I think there would be many parents who would take on a special private education loan to get there child in a private school.

Our youngest transferred to a private school in year 9 because the state school she and her older siblings had attended was falling apart and the bullying became so bad she developed very, very serious mental health issues.

So I think a loan for secondary private education is directly comparable to 3 years - 4 if a foundation year or masters add on degree course.

We used private tutors and I wouldn't consider us wealthy. We did it because one of our children is dyslexic and they needed the extra support to pass GCSE's.

Large numbers of people can't afford private tutors and their dyslexic children just have to take their chances in the state system. They might not get extra support, and might not pass GCSE's. You're using your wealth to buy educational privilege whether you admit it or not. It's no different to private schooling.

Builders sometimes take cash, but that doesn't stop building work being VAT rated.

Look at percentages of independently educated people at Oxbridge, in Parliament, in top companies etc. it’s disproportionate and it isn’t because those people are better. A lot of it is the advantage and contacts bought by their parents. If it didn’t advantage then people wouldn’t pay. It’s wrong that children get further because if their parents financial success.

I have absolutely no problem with the fact we used our money/wealth/earnings (call it what you will) to buy educational privilege. We're doing it still to support our children.

Also builders (and tutors) take cash and their work may indeed be VAT rated but no VAT is going to be paid from tutors salaries if it isn't declared/the total salary is less that 12K - that's what I meant, sorry if I wasn't clear.

Worrying about your son is understandable. Making it sound as though you think those who can’t afford private education haven’t ‘worked hard to provide’ for their children is not.

I agree this is also an issue. I do t think that because the system in state isn’t perfect we should ignore a glaring inequality though. We can (and should) try to solve both issues.

Life may not be fair, @BloodyHellKen
Thats not an excuse for a government to leave glaring inequality and do nothing. In fact it’s an argument to do more. Improve state education. Ensure more equitable catchments. Make it possible for more people from less advantaged backgrounds to make the most of education.
your worry about university is unnecessary because doing what you say you worry about would make things less equitable, not more. The independent school policy is designed to make things more equitable (even if you disagree as to whether it will work).

@cardibach when did I say:

"those who can’t afford private education haven’t ‘worked hard to provide’ for their children"

That's outrageous- but a common line from Labour Party hq shills if I may say.

I was giving a bit of context with regard to us as private school parents. Of course everyone cares, we have been lucky to get bursary help, others can afford to move into better catchments others can do neither. As I said up thread I'm all fit properly finding state education- but why destroy to do so?

@wigywhoo of course you didn’t say it. You implied it. You think it’s wrong to try to equalise opportunity and you say it’s great for your son and you ‘worked hard’ for it. Lots of people work hard and could never afford it.
Also - ‘shill’? Seriously?
shill
noun

1. an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others.

Me supporting a policy I happen to think is right from a main stream political party doesn’t come even close to fitting that definition.

With respect @cardibach what you are saying doesn't add up, not IMO anyway.

I'm concerned that a Labour govt could remove tax exemption from universities as they are also VAT exempt in the same way private schools are and yes, this would make things less equitable I agree. But as a PP has pointed out it was a Labour govt who first brought in tuition fees and a Lib Dem/Tory coalition who ramped them up to current levels where most students have to take out a loan to pay almost 30K of fees.

I don't remember seeing any concerns about equity from either Labour or the Lib Dems then so please excuse me if I don't think equity is at the forefront of Labours mind and raising revenue is - hence my concern about removing VAT exemption from universities.

I was merely pointing the accusation you and others have made to the OP. Apologies if you didn't use it.

I didn't mean what you claim - do I think my own parents didn't work hard because I went to the local school?

You're getting desperate now, its pathetic.

You’ve been told several reasons why it’s incredibly unlikely (to the point of impossible) that this will happen and you are starting to look as though it’s all an act to turn people against Labour.
You haven’t heard Labour talk about equity? Do you even know what the Labour Party is? Why it was started? What its political philosophy is? Seriously, do a bit of reading and maybe you’ll understand why you are worried for nothing.

I didn’t use it, no. But those who did use it about the Op used it correctly if she is what they suspect - somebody pretending to think something g which has been made up to put people off Labour.
I’m not desperate at all. You do t seem very aware of the undertones and implications of your views. Why do you think your son is entitled to smaller classes etc?

@cardibach he's not entitled to anything in an absolute sense. If your house is bigger than mine it's not because you are entitled to it in a moral sense, you can just afford it.

I think you are very unfair to dismiss the OP and others as shills - perhaps take a long hard look at your motivations.

Your mask is slipping - a lot of unpleasantness there.

Jesus @cardibach you couldn't have sounded anymore patronising if you'd told me to 'educate myself' 😂

I'm well aware of how where and when the Labour part was set up thanks and as I said previously I don't remember any talk about equity/levelling up etc when Labour introduced uni fees. Surely that was the opposite of equity - as is having to take out a 30K loan.

There are some others on this thread who share my concerns and I can assure you, it is not an act to turn people against Labour 🙄

Increasingly on MN if you say something someone else doesn't agree with - especially something political you are automatically accused of being a shill/a journalist/some sort of agitator. As I've said previously on this thread. I am an average middle aged woman who has some concerns about a policy suggestion to remove VAT from private schools and worry this could also impact university fees.

And yes, I have been told several reasons why this wouldn't happen but non of them have reduced by concerns because in short, many politicians don't play with a straight hand, across all parties.

Why should education provision be the monopoly of the State?

Exactly... will they come for home schoolers next?

But those who did use it about the Op used it correctly if she is what they suspect - somebody pretending to think something g which has been made up to put people off Labour.

I'm following this thread with interest but have never read anything on this forum or any other that would sway me towards or away from any political party.

I disagree with fees. But to explain the reasoning - in order to increase numbers , which given the disproportionate number of independent school pupils getting places, was the only way to open up opportunity and allow more of those intellectually equipped for degree study to have the opportunity it was judged that some contribution would have to be made by students. As I say, I disagree. I d8 t agree with everything the Labour Party does, funnily enough. But to say they don’t talk about or aim for equity is nonsense.

Well, good for you. It’s well known that social media is used for that purpose though. It wouldn’t be a shock to learn some posters were paid political agitators.

To ensure standards are equitable?
And I’m aware that isn’t working massively well, I know the state system is imperfect as a teacher of 35 years…
Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do something about the most glaring issues though.

You aren’t doing yourself any favours raising silly ideas like this.
Though actually I do think there should be more oversight of this, since a colleague of mine’s son died as a result of abuse while being home schooled. She was being abused too, but nobody knew because home schoolers are left to themselves.

@cardibach - calm down, it was a question, and you seem in favour of it so. It so silly eh? Surely the logical conclusion of your point in the argument for state monopoly, re: standards. You're getting a bit muddled in your thinking, unfortunately.

*not so.

No, I’m not in favour of anyone ‘coming for’ home Ed. Just regulating a little more. And I’m not the Labour Party so, yes, it is a bit silly.
‘It was a question’ seems ingenuous to me.