VAT on private school fees - will it change how you vote?

[Iwishicouldflyhigh]

Following on from the other interesting thread about whether it will be implemented, will this policy change how you vote either way?
For me - i've voted Labour and Tory over the years, but Tory for the most recent GE's. This year, i've been thinking seriously about how i'd vote at the next GE and it wasn't definitely a Tory vote - i was definitely a floating voter.
However, my children are at PS and so i will now most definitely be voting Tory (not just because how the VAT will seriously impact us - child number 3 will now not be going to the prep that we had lined up for her, she'll enter the local primary until secondary school - but how i think that it will affect schools negatively and children negatively).
I have a lot of left leaning friends who educate privately and whilst they cannot bring themselves to vote Tory, they won't vote Labour either at the next GE because of this policy.

It seems to me that this policy is only a vote loser (ie many Labour voters and 'floaters' who school privately won't vote for them at the next GE) and not a vote winner (ie i can't imagine that many Tory or 'floaters' will vote for Labour solely on this policy).

AiBU to think that Labour have really shot themselves in the foot with this idea?

What planet are you on? VAT is charged on foreign holidays.

I’m fairly certain you are incorrect. Hopefully a VAT expert will be along shortly. For example, there is no UK VAT on a USA hotel stay. There is also no VAT on air fares. They are zero rated. Air Passenger Duty is often less than the equivalent VAT would be.

Rules for tour operators
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tour-operators-margin-scheme-for-vat-notice-70

Basic VAT principles
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-how-to-work-out-your-place-of-supply-of-services#:~:text=The%20'place%20of%20supply'%20is,more%20than%20one%20business%20location

Without reading the public notice, if I recall you are charged VAT on the markup a travel agent makes on your holiday. Hence it’s called tour operators margin scheme.

So it would appear, so long as you get to have more money than most people will ever have and your kids get a great education, who cares about the rest of the population.

As I said taxes are very high already. They can use those taxes we already paid to fix schools. It is plenty but the priority goes somewhere else. I am not in any way responsible for your kids. I look after mine and the government should make good used of billions raised in taxes not squeeze and squeeze the middle classes. May be start looking after the people already here before opening to masses to burden schools and services would also help.

I think your response is up there with the most ridiculous posts actually, obviously you don't have an economics degree!

You sound like you have a vested interest so of course you think a plutocracy would be the best solution!

To save you reading,

“As a tour operator based in the UK, you only account for VAT on the difference between the amount you receive from your customer (including any amounts paid on behalf of your customer by third parties) and the amount you pay your suppliers.”

”Your Margin liability is:

• standard-rated when the tour is enjoyed in the UK
• zero-rated when enjoyed outside the UK”

ie Zero UK VAT on a foreign holiday.

@Bululu

Marginal taxes on income are very high on the higher earners in the UK. Comparable to Scandinavian countries

They are actually LOW on the lower earners, which is precisely the problem. In Scandinavia, lower earners pay in far more tax.

The UKs tax base is way too narrow, and we have masses of people paying little/no income tax and demanding gold-plated services in return

So the question is not: do higher earners need to pay even higher levels of tax?

Its more that the lower earners in the UK need to pay a lot more in income tax to fund those gold-plated services the are demanding.

So they want "better state schools", they need to pay a lot more in tax and stop extracting from the public finances.

@Goldenbear

I have four degrees Two of them in economics, so am pretty sure I can comment here with my expertise.

Charlie2121 is correct. The post they quoted was spectacularly misinformed.

Of course you do....

@Goldenbear

I suggest you stop commenting given that you do not have a basic understanding of the economics.

This isn't high school and we value expertise in the real world. If you don't have it I suggest you be quiet and read. You might actually learn something for a change..

@BouncingJAS Yes 👍 I meant higher earners paid a lot already.

My children are below school age. We plan on state primary and will decide on secondary options later. The VAT will not make enough of a financial difference to sway our decision on private v state secondary. And it definitely wouldn’t affect how I vote regardless of where my child is educated.

Public finances are so far overstretched that we
need policies to raise revenue or cut public spending. I’d rather those are targeted at people who can best afford them. Those who can afford private schooling (even if it’s a stretch) fall into this category.

If you have two Economics degrees you would know that relevant to this argument is to point out what the bottom percentile of earners take home in comparison to these countries, Britain ranks 15th place for the bottom 5% earners in the context of income distribution compared to our European counterparts!

That's me told by the pseudo Economist, I suggest you ask for your money back from the university of Talking Shite that you obviously attended.

Labour introduced comprehensive education in 1965. I’m no thatcher fan but she was never going to rescind shitty comps as it would have been a vote killer. Many people in this country don’t like others to do their best, it’s all about making everyone the lowest common denominator rather than aspiring to be the best we can be. Sad but true.

But anyway, that’s by the by. No vote for Labour whilst they can’t accurately define a woman using biological facts.

Why are policies only divisive when it comes to Labour? Not the austerity measures of the last 13 years under Tory rule that has seen inequality rise?

Honestly, I don't know who I'm going to vote for. I think the Tories have made a complete pig's ear of things in the last 13 years, and nothing I see around me convinces me that they will be a good bet in the future. It's hard to know what Labour will do, as the majority of their policies are still a state secret. I do know that Keir etc believe TWAW and don't wish to protect single spaces for women, or women in sports, and I feel quite strongly about that, so they aren't top of my vote list either. Really looking for some inspiration, which so far has not struck!

Of all the hills I am prepared to die on, vat on private schools isnt one of them. However, I will be interested to see what the Labour parties stance is on transgender issues and this IS the hill I am prepared to die on. Hopefully they will take soundings before the campaign and realise that their previous self idenfication stance is just plain wrong. Having turned up at my local pool where there are only communal changing areas and communal showers to be confronted by a person in a bikini with a penis in the womans changing rooms and the local pool provider head office telling me that they cant do anything to stop him using the facilities because he identifies as female and has told them he is transitioning I will not vote for any party that refuses come out and say this is situation as I found myself in is unequivocally just plain wrong.

As for VAT on private education, I 100% support this. these schools are not charities and its about time the whole charities commission was overhauled to stop these sorts of anomolies (and there are others) occuring.

It’s the most ridiculous policy. Talk about creating an even wider chasm of elitism. Not only that, there will be increased pressure on primaries. Parents with money will just drive property prices up around the best schools - thus driving out other children who could have benefitted.

I live in an area where parents will actively rent an additional house nearby to get into a local primary. Spend the money on fees, and free up places for children that could access them. It’s not a race to the bottom - labour should be focusing on enabling more access to private education, by (for example), having a certain number of compulsory bursaries per year.

No one will ever penalise the availability of private medical care, because it takes the pressure off the NHS (and it’s the right of the user to spend their money that way if they wish). Similar concept.

The Tories were keen in 2017, indeed Michael Gove was very scathing of private school fees being VAT exempt, writing in the Times in 2017, he asked how it could be justified! How strange that it is a commie suggestion when raised by the Labour party.

It's already elitist, coveting that position is just selfish and shortsighted as education is intrinsically linked to economic growth.

Equally, you can address issues of purchasing houses for school places by having lottery policies, this is what exists where we live, it doesn't matter whether you have a house next to the school. In our city the birthrate is falling and schools are having to close, this is reflected nationally, due to birth rates falling, the overall drop in pupil numbers over the next few years will be a lot higher than the total numbers who are privately educated so there will be places. Ratios of pupils to staff could increase so private schools can make cost savings, they can adapt, they can even apply to be state Academies so there are solutions but obviously the Private schools have to be honest about whether they are willing to find them or as is probably the case, are parents more worried about loosing the advantage PS currently affords their children.

That is the usual smoke and mirrors used by business managers to justify their obscene and unearned pay.

First, if UK business’ productivity is abysmal that’s not the fault of the rank and file workers. That is the fault of management. You know, those of us with MBAs that have sat through all the latest and greatest on production, logistics, finance and procurement education.

Secondly you are trying to say that higher paid workers put in more time and effort, they are workaholics you say. This is a lie. Rank and file workers work longer hours and are often expected to do the work while staffed at 80% or lower of the personnel needed to do a job.

I rather think your view is the naive one. Thinking that managers are actually earning their much higher pay when they are often not. Think of the businesses run into the ground by poor management where its leaders take too much out on bonuses, salary, excessive expense accounts, share options and so on.

When business productivity and earnings are low, managers take care of themselves. Line that golden parachute and move in to another high flying job where they mismanage yet another business.

Well, Sweden, which i do know a fair bit about, the average salary is nr £40k per year, they also have secure tenancies, with average rents a lot less than in most English towns, average house price in Malmo is 188k.... Quite simply they can afford to pay more tax.

If so many people in the UK are claiming in work benefits (whilst working FT) how or rather what is the point of having higher taxes on them?

If you want this redistribution of the tax base, then stop voting for parties which hold down wages, Dr's Nurses, Train driver etc all have far lower pay (in real terms) now than they did 20 years ago.

Whats a bit weird though is if wage rises drive inflation (as Hunt/Sunak tells us they do) and UK wages have been held down over time, then why was our inflation sooo high? or was greed driving price rises?

Why are policies only divisive when it comes to Labour? Not the austerity measures of the last 13 years under Tory rule that has seen inequality rise?

All I know is that regardless of those in government I pay a lot of tax. I do not know how austerity is divisive in the sense that wherever decisions are made I pay high taxes. Or you mean the benefits recipients hate the high earners or blame us for the austerity? I believe that low skills low wages and government top up of minimum wages are part of the problem. This keeps people trapped. Also, you can’t expect people arriving to live here being very poor becoming richer. They mainly stay poor if we are brutally honest. May be a bit better than from they came from but poor for the U.K.

I guess Austerity wouldn't affect you.

The UKs tax base is way too narrow, and we have masses of people paying little/no income tax and demanding gold-plated services in return

Do you mean people like Rishi Sunak who pays 22% tax on earnings of almost £5m, tax paid was just over £1m.
Do you imagine his kids will be moving across to the state sector if Lab carry through this policy?

I used to pay 40% on a far lower salary & its important people pay taxes, countries that have super large numbers of very poor people with little or no access to services, can have very hi crime rates and life inc yours, has no value eg S. Africa and in many parts USA.

Rishi is super wealthy not a high earner so of course his kids will stay in private school. That is the whole point of being against the policy. It would only affect the middle class that already are taxed a lot.

The policy is already a failure.

Yes, taxes are needed but this is unsustainable now. The UK is not desirable for high skills people. There needs to be a balance. We are at the worse of both high taxes and high crime in our streets. The fact tax is high is meaningless because we have homeless and crime and gangs just the same. It is a con.

You’re being used as a vote grabber @Bululu

It won’t do much apart from headlines