AIBU that VAT on school fees makes no economical sense?

[fuckwitery]

Trying to research what it costs the state to put a child through school each year. Figures I've found show between £6 - £8k. We pay £13k per DC per year. That's prep, so will be more for senior school. So at the mo introducing VAT on these fees would add £2,600 to the state coffers. £4k for senior school.

We, and lots of others who just about manage to pay for private schooling, will be forced to take their children out. Therefore it's a NET loss for the state?

Or am I missing something.

Whilst some people may decide to withdraw their children from private school the majority won't (whatever they say at the moment) so it will be a net gain.

I suspect that those already in the system will remain in it until the next natural break point.

But more people will be priced out, so there will be a greater numbers seekingnstate school places idc. So a slow burning, rather than a dramatic change.

So, guessing tax in fees arrives around Sept 19 at the earliest, the various stages of education last 2-4 years. No big flouncing but increased pressures to the state sector manifest by about 2021-23 so the govt which introduced it may not be in situ by the time any adverse effect is apparent (next GE 2022)

Private schools should be banned. Only then will there be any incentive for those at the top of society to improve all schools for everyone. It would also get rid of the ridiculous class system that keeps the same elite people in charge of everything.

Look at the Netherlands. Hardly any private education. Even the children of the Royal family are in state schools. Can you imagine that happening here? Little George and Charlotte mixing with Tyler and Chelsey from the estate?

Not criticising those who choose private ed for their kids - obviously you want what's best for them. The point is that the best should be available for all.

Why OhWine your neighbor would have paid vat on his holidays, cars and home improvements.
Why shouldn't you pay vat on your choices?

No, working hard doesn't always mean earning more money, but why should someone who studied hard through school, went to university and studied harder, continued to develop their particular skills and now find themselves in well paid and sought-after career be apologetic about their earning potential and achievements?

That's what is wrong with this country. People get torn down for being high achievers.

Not everyone has the opportunity to excel and that's a shame. Not everyone has the ability to achieve and that's life.

Taxing education is morally reprehensible. I am a leftie but this is one of the (many) reasons why labour will not get my vote this time around.

If people have to pay VAT on their expensive cars and holidays, which are not essentials, and women have to pay VAT on essential sanitary products, why should private schools be exempt?

jojo

Dont nessacarily disagree (no idea what I think at this point)

But they are not taxing education they are talking about taxing a specific type of education...does that make a difference do you think

"nd themselves in well paid and sought-after career be apologetic about their earning potential and achievements?" They shouldn't.

But the suggestion that people who work hard earn a lot and vice versa is not only incorrect but reprehensible.

I don't think anyone did suggest that, did they? Most of us who have involvement with the world of work generally have the wit to notice that effort does not always correlate with reward.

Sorry, I can't see where anyone has suggested that.

"It just taps into the hatred that people in this country have for those who can afford what they cannot. Most of Labour's policies are about taxing those bastards who work hard but earn more than you"

Lots of policies aren't about making money though. Because of a laffer curve you can have a tax rate that is too high. If the top rate of tax is 100% obviously nobody would bother working for a salary that high.

When the top rate of tax was reduced from 50 to 45 the government actually made more money from the lower rate because people worked more hours, structured their finances differently etc.

Yet labour want to increase the top rate of tax to (estimated) 60%. How are the going to fund this increase in tax because people won't pay it and overal the government would receive less tax receipts.

It's not about raising money, it's the politics of envy.

I hate to point out the obvious, but the statement you quote does not actually say that the connection between hard work and reward is invariable.
I think you feel the need, for obscure reasons if your own, to deprive the privately educating parent of any claim to moral virtue they might have. But I suspect few of them care whether they have your approval or not.

rhayadar

Where does it say 60%?

I hate the way the parties dont give people actual figures so i would be interested in seeing what labour are saying

And conservatives, i think all the parties will increase tax

When the top rate of tax was reduced from 50 to 45 the government actually made more money from the lower rate because people worked more hours, structured their finances differently etc

So by your estimations if they lowered it to 1% they'd make the most money?

Labour have said as far as I know, (think it might have been the guardian) 45% from £80K and the 50% from £150K

Bertrand - 'work hard and earn more than you' is not the same as 'work harder than, and earn more than you'. It's not the same as 'work equally as hard as you and earn more'. I did not use a comparison between how hard low and high earners work.

As a low earner and an extremely hard worker, I find your spoiling for an argument with the type of person you're trying to defend laughable.

I agree with whoever said it's the politics of envy.

RufusTheRenegadeReindeer Apparently all manifesto will be fully costed.

"If people have to pay VAT on their expensive cars and holidays, which are not essentials, and women have to pay VAT on essential sanitary products, why should private schools be exempt?"

Do remember that VAT is an EU consumption tax. It's not a luxury tax.
For example, in much of EU all food is vat-able (uK has a 0% rate on some because of the history of the development of VAT and how member states at times of changes could keep previous rates or move to prevailing rate).

Education is however exempt. Not zero-rated but totally exempt.

The EU doesn't tax education carried out in schools. That is why all school fees are exempt. We can however change this however we want once we leave. Quite a change to see such a strongly pro-Brexit thread on MN.

Tampon tax can also end as soon as we leave.

Will have a look, thanks just

I wish they would stop saying modest...my idea of modest is not jezza's

Ooh thanks piglet

I am even more interested to see them in that case

I agree with whoever said it's the politics of envy.

Perhaps its a lack of aspiration/work ethic in those pp's who wont be able to continue to send their children to private school because you were priced out of the market, perhaps you should 'work harder' to be able to achieve enough financial security to give your children a better start in life, thats capitalism for you, perhaps some of that wealth will trickle down to you poor poor dears.

Isnt that what they tell us low income families?

I dont think its pre brexit

Pre EU we had purchase tax Between October 1940 and 1973 the UK had a consumption tax called Purchase Tax, which was levied at different rates depending on goods' luxuriousness. Purchase Tax was applied to the wholesale price, initially at a rate of 33 1⁄3%.

Apparently

Pro brexit

For goodness sake

My typing tonight is diabolical