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?

There should be NO private schools!!! They should not exist, where is the social equality?!

@Lilacdressinggown

How long have you been on mn. It can't be long or maybe this is your first time posting on such a thread.

I only ask because it's well known now that unfortunately state schools cannot cope with any sen with of course a few very rare exceptions.

So many smaller job selector statement school fill Jose gap for dc who need smaller cosy more homely cosy schools with more provisional for sen.

Some pants regally do sacrifice everything to get them there.

@piesforever there will never be the social equality that you mean. Some people will always earn more than others.
Getting rid of private schools doesn't = social equality, just look at the amount of money is spent on private tutors every year to get kids into grammar schools.
People will always play the system to get their kids into the best schools etc
Getting rid of private schools won't stop this happening and will actually result in less social equality as those parents would just buy houses in the catchment areas for good schools etc.
Read the full thread and you will understand why.

Fantasy

Not really. Only some English LAs have retained grammars. No grammars at all in Scotland.

Why is Labour penalising parents who are working to invest in their children's education, rather than make high quality state education at every level accessible to EVERY child, regardless of background?

It doesn't affect the elite lot very much at all where school fees is pocket change from offshore funds... but it does affect those where school fees are 50% of their after-tax income, whether or not you think that is a good idea

Either remove all private schools/universities, make them state, or leave all education tax exempt. It's a public service no different to healthcare.

@cardibach

How ridiculous! You cannot expect private schools to keep bursaries going all the while charging non bursary students 20% more for their schooling! The spite and vindictiveness lies purely with the Labour Party.

"Either remove all private schools/universities, make them state, or leave all education tax exempt. It's a public service no different to healthcare."
The problem is that a lot of State education is not exempt from VAT. Sixth Form Colleges have to pay tax whilst most Private schools do not.

This isn’t correct. You’ve got it the wrong way round. Private schools have to pay the VAT; state schools effectively don’t.

Private schools have to pay VAT on goods/services and cannot reclaim that VAT (that would change if fees become subject to VAT).

State schools initially pay VAT on goods/services but can then reclaim that VAT (the process is different depending on the type of school).

Sixth form colleges are slightly different, but I believe they can reclaim VAT if they register as academies.

This explains it quite well

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2022-03-01/132164/

I’m sure it will happen eventually, whether in 5 or 10 years’ time. Once the principle of taxing education is there, no government will be able to resist.

I doubt it for two reasons

1. students vote many for Labour
2. we are having enough trouble recruiting doctors, nurses, teachers and other professions which require a degree. Hiking fees up with taxes even more isn’t going to improve that

‘Why is Labour penalising parents who are working to invest in their children's education, ‘

again, like the rest of us don’t care or invest in our children’s education. Patronising to say the least.

I think what they meant is that, exactly like my situation, I work purely to pay for fees and all my wage pays for them.
We have prioritised school over paying for a bigger house etc.
If we didn't pay fees then I could give up work.

Yet many universities are in severe financial difficulties (read the Higher Education boards) and the current levels of fees don't cover their costs. Mass redundancies and the ending of many programmes eg MFL.

Nobody's saying you don't care or invest. I'm very glad you care because for socially considerate and selfish reasons I'm all for your children getting a good education.

What we're saying is we invest our after-tax income, and it's different from when other children's education is paid for from taxpayers' money. If we didn't do this it would be worse, not better, for the state system and for your children.

The more supportive the parents are the better the school, so private school parents will improve state education.

Private school parents already improve state education, by paying disproportionately towards it and not using it. Every private school place saves the taxpayer 3-10x the value of the alleged "tax break". If all private schools were closed, as some argue for, the cost to the government would be £4-6 billion not allowing for capital investment that would be required.

But what you're referring to..."private school parents improving state education" is highly doubtful. There are already 2 million upper quartile earners in state education. Mainly, they buy catchment areas and tutoring. There are many other "supportive parents" across the income spectrum and not much evidence they are having much beneficial effect on state schools.

Why do you assume the migration of 40,000 (IFS) to 135,000 (Baines Cutler) children will "improve state education" in ways several millions of existing "supportive parents" do not? Do you think people forced to change school are likely to be more, or less, supportive than the people already there? What is the cost to the families forced to move? What happens in the longer run when competition for preferred state schools becomes more intense and middle-earners' kids get edged out?

I've heard this message so many times. I've written an article here.

There's no reason or evidence behind the claim that socially-engineering socially-mixed schools is good for the schools; the end doesn't justify the means; and the claim is a painful distraction from what it really takes to improve education (which I'm sure is what we all really want).

Bright kids shouldn't be expected to help bad schools (substack.com)

I've heard this message so many times. I've written an article here.

You mean just like state school parents have heard the message so many times that state schools are ‘complete rubbish’, the kids are feral and the parents don’t care.

Why can't supportive state school parents improve the state schools? What can private parents magically do that state one's can't? Unless you are saying that they are miraculously superior?
If we move DD state we won't look to improve the school, all that will happen is that we will pay for private tutors, I will stop working and we will have less stress. The chances of DD getting in to a better university will increase too due to contextual offers.

The chances of DD getting in to a better university will increase too due to contextual offers.

Not necessarily.

Being at a state school is only one factor taken into account and contextual offers often require other factors such as home postcode, FSM, caring responsibilities, looked after or refugee status etc. And even then, it’s no guarantee of an offer for popular courses.

Well I've only heard that from the teachers who post on here and a few friends who are teachers in state secondary school, all of whom have chosen private schools for their DC.
Of course not all state schools are dire, there are some amazing ones but to pretend that there isn't a crisis in state education at the moment would be to ignore facts. Getting a good state education is a post code lottery. Northern schools receive less funding per pupil than Southern ones and NE schools have some of the worst outcomes in England.
If you are in the privileged position of being within the catchment of good state schools then I can see how you wouldn't be able to comprehend why parents would send their kids private however there needs to be an acknowledgement that the 1 size fits all system has failed. It has failed many SEN DC, it fails many high achievers and it fails many low achievers. If anything we need MORE choice and options, not less.

Well I've only heard that from the teachers who post on here and a few friends who are teachers in state secondary school

If that’s regarding contextual offers then maybe best to check facts before making sweeping statements?

If you are in the privileged position of being within the catchment of good state schools

Well that’s quite the assumption, isn’t it?

No it is regarding the comment of a PP saying "You mean just like state school parents have heard the message so many times that state schools are ‘complete rubbish’, the kids are feral and the parents don’t care."
How can a statement saying "if you live in the catchment..." be an assumption? I maybe should have said " if one lives in the catchment". I am saying that I understand why someone might not understand the need for private school if they live in the catchment of a good state school. Not sure what is controversial about that.

Have not read whole thread but this is based on a weird misconception that universities are educational establishments. They aren't. All universities can only get a royal charter island confer degrees if they conduct research and teaching and thus promote knowledge. Look up the royal charter of whichever uni you attended their aims are all pretty much the same.

Fees charged for uni Ed cross subsidize research and always have done. At no point have Labour said they intend to charge VAT on research, which wd have far reaching impacts on other sectors like the govts own research funding bodies and charitable research funders. Plus they are fairly clear they are aiming to promote growth so discouraging investment in research wd be somewhat counterproductive to that.

TL: DR universities are not just schools for big children. They are different entirely. Therefore the question doesn't arise.