Do you think labour will actually implement 20% vat on school fees?

[labpit]

We have two in Year 7 and year 10 and I am not sure what we will do if this happens. It is a certainty do you think?

What do all the other post 16 students do locally? He can't be the only sixth form student for miles around?!

catchment areas of good state schools.

Of the 2 primary schools only one has a catchment area as it's in a more 'home owner, area.

The secondary school open its doors to a different county let alone catchment area, local DC were being refused places as
It's a pretty good state secondary, so they double the size by building more classrooms instead of refusing the DC from out of area.

I remember the uproar, as not only was it my DC local school parents we're complaining that the other counties rates were nowhere near as much as ours were so the school shouldn't take the out of catchment kids.

I have really wrestled with what I think about this policy, from the perspective of someone who is a comprehensively educated professional married to another comprehensively educated professional, with 7 siblings between us who all also fall into this category. But having gone private to try to get the SEN support my kids weren’t getting in the state sector. And an otherwise natural Labour voter. The VAT increase won’t mean I have to move my kids, so it won’t really affect me.

I think that I’ve come to the conclusion that on macro terms, the policy is going to be a complete non-event. It won’t raise enough cash to be felt on the ground, and no great numbers of kids will swarm from private to state. It will do nothing to address the structural inequality in the system, and will probably reinforce it.

But on micro terms, there’ll be individual children whose educations will be disrupted in a detrimental way - either because they have to move to a school which is unsuitable for their needs or because they’re in a school which becomes overwhelmed by the closure of a local independent.

So I think as a standalone policy (as opposed to one of a raft of well thought out changes) it would be best avoided.

And I would point out that VAT is a regressive tax, so not very well thought out as a left wing policy 🤦🏻‍♀️

I stopped short of writing some of what you say....but agree.

I have plenty of independent thought. I just don’t agree with you which is what you don’t like. You said:

“The post asked why if parents are able to pay childcare fees its beyond the realms of possibility they could do it for private school”

People using UC to fund nursery are not “paying” are they?! Those that paying out of their salary could, in many cases, continue to do so for private school. I’m not saying that they should, but they could.

You will never “level the playing field” in education, for the simple fact that parental involvement is the biggest indicator of future outcomes.

For every parent (state or private) who supervises homework and reads with their child on a daily basis, there are parents who couldn’t give a shit whether their child goes to school that day or not.

You could pump untold fortunes into state schools but until education is valued by all in this society there are areas that will always be behind due to parental demographic.

@Yesnosorryplease
There are three indies.
There are two state comps that stop at GCSE
There are sahms who drive their dcs to whichever school every day
There is a closer 6th form college that specialises in practical skills & btecs, and doesn't offer a'levels
The local council won't pay for transport after 16. They say this.....

'There is no automatic eligibility for Hampshire County Council funded home to school transport after the age of 16. There are a number of public transport service providers in Hampshire. Colleges and schools in Hampshire have their own transport arrangements but the situation does vary.'

So basically 'tough'. Car sharing? Boarding?

I'm looking for somewhere closer I can drive him to, to pick up a bus. At the moment driving 17 miles and then getting a train is slightly less expensive. But it's marginal to the indie and that extra 20%.

Agree

There is so much deliberate disingenuity going on here.

I have posted this on quite a few threads before I think but it is really important.

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/private-schools-spend-three-times-more-on-each-pupil/

Since I went to a good (top 40 in the country) London day private school, school fees have gone up by more than 3x inflation. You have to ask yourself why this 300% increase that priced normal professionals out of the market was ignored by the wealthy who enjoyed the increasingly country-club like atmosphere of private schools but this extra 15% tax (and it is 15, not 20, as 5% can be reclaimed) has caused such anger.

I suspect that if fees went up 15% to pay for a state-of-the-art theatre or a football pitch with under grass heating, the parents would happily pay.

Surely the 'mugs' that scrimp and save (and get 'loans' from grandparents) to avoid the horror of state education will continue to do so once tax is fairly appropriated?

It's not about finding the financial support needed for the state system but fairness in application of existing rules.

There should not be tax breaks for private schools. Why do you automatically assume this will mean an increase in fees unless you automatically assume fee paying parents will have to make up the shortfall? This is what is wrong with private schools - they are businesses. It is the choice of those schools whether or not they pass on the loss of tax breaks to fee paying parents. As they consider themselves a business wanting to make profit I expect they will. Perhaps you need to question the profit motive? As in cash not producing DC with a good education.

So i hope you re not suggesting the state does nothing and we pick up the tab for all these poorly educated people for the rest of their lives.
Zero attempt to break the cycle of poor parenting.

Unless we improve educational outcomes, this countries benefits bill will just keep raising, along side our debt mountain and lower productivity.

If this policy raises 1.5bn for spending on the nationals disadvantaged kids, then i'm all for it.

@Newbutoldfather

So let me get this straight... You want:

1. People to may marginal taxes of over 50%
2. Those taxes to fund school places they do NOT use (this is a subsidy for the lower earners by the way)
3. From post-tax income they pay £15k for private school

And now you want to whack these people with another 15% tax on their post-tax spending?

And people wonder why the UK is sinking. The absurdity of some of the people in this country is amazing.

Taxing education is precisely what a banana republic does because when you tax something you will always get less of it (in this case education in the aggregate sense. Public and private included). Country therefore becomes less educated. Not more.

VAT on the whole may be regressive. VAT on school fees certainly isn’t!

Do you think that perhaps those who get so annoyed with the 'sacrifice' language used around this topic are not actually those who are going on expensive holidays or buying huge houses and cars? Most people absolutely could not afford private school even if they made the 'sacrifices' you have made. To them all you have done is made a budgeting decision that is only available to you as you (presumably) have an above average income. Sacrifice really is a loaded word and is insulting to those who really are making sacrifices to get through to pay day. We are going on our first holiday abroad in 16 years this summer. It's costing me less than £3k. It would be incredibly insulting to people less well off than me if I said I was 'making sacrifices' like not getting a new car or going for meals out to afford this holiday. It's a budgeting decision that I have made and is currently within my means. It's crap to say the vast majority of people sending their kids to private school are making meaningful sacrifices. They are budgeting. We all do it in one way or another.

@PocketSand ,

They are charities and, as such, don’t make a profit.

But they can build up substantial reserves, and often do. These are mostly used for new flashy buildings or I.t equipment.

They could use reserves for mitigating some of this if they chose to, but they wouldn’t last that long.

Realistically, they will put fees up about 7 or 8%, give teachers sub inflation pay rises, maybe delay the next new building by a few years, and cut some of the bloated SLT, maybe one less Director of Creative Learning…

It is not the existential deal people are making out.

It won’t happen. They know it’s in the best interests of the country for at least some of the public to be properly educated - we need doctors, scientists, engineers, and they ain’t gonna flow from your average comprehensives.

This is an extremely ignorant post. Most of the Doctors I know (and I know a lot) were state educated, I also know state educated scientists and engineers.

I don't know about swimming lessons, but most music teachers are individuals and wouldn't reach the turnover for VAT registration, which I think at the moment is a turnover of £85,000 per annum. A lot of small dance schools wouldn't either.

@Tiredandgrumpykids

of course it is. Those with the lowest incomes (of school fee payers) pay the highest proportion of their income in VAT, compared to those with the highest earners. Just because there are people who have even lower incomes and aren’t part of the picture doesn’t mean it’s not regressive. The most privileged will be the least affected…as per fucking usual.

There seems to be a general misunderstanding about how VAT works. Not having VAT on school fees is not a tax break for the schools. The school doesn't incur the VAT, the people paying the fees do. A school, in simple terms, would merely collect the VAT from the parents and then pay it over to HMRC.

At the moment, private schools are not able to reclaim VAT on purchases. State schools however, through some special VAT legislation, can reclaim their input VAT, despite education being an exempt supply.

So in fact it is state schools that are currently enjoying a "VAT tax break". This "tax break" is not available to other entities that make VAT-exempt supplies, whether they are private schools or not.

All things being equal, if a private school were to simply add the 20% VAT onto its fees (as opposed to reducing the fees slightly and then applying the 20% VAT), then they would actually benefit from Labour's proposed change in VAT legislation, because they would be able reclaim all the VAT that they currently can't.

Apologies for my crass language. They build up 'reserves' not 'profits' because they are classified as charities. But if you take away charitable status are the reserves then profits? And what is the difference between spending reserves and profits? Where does tax come into this?

It does seem to be an issue that private school parents are concerned that they are paying tax for state education that they do not benefit from, are paying private fees and are looking at paying tax on top?

@PocketSand the charitable status is staying, it was proposed but Starmer has changed on this

Schools will have a good level of VAT expenditure they can offset and will find other savings; I suspect that it won't go up more than 10% unless a school is horribly mismanaged.

There are lots of knock on effects that impact other industries.
Paying extra for school fees will take from money spent elsewhere cleaners/gardeners/beautician/local pub/takeaway etc this will impact many small businesses too.

@FiloPasty ,

So these people making the massive sacrifices still employ cleaners and beauticians.

At least be consistent…