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?

I'll be more likely to vote for a party that does implement this. Private schools should be treated as businesses.

I took the figures from the OECD, no assumptions made.

Income tax does not equal "overall tax burden"

As for "Lower Earners should pay more in" How? they don't earn enough to house or feed themselves as it is without claiming tax credits.

Where do you think a FT worker on or near the NMW will be able to pay more in taxes?
Over half the UK s workforce earn less than £15 ph (jan 2023)

@jasflowers Yes, but this isn't the way to do it. VAT on fees disproportionately targets one specific area of wealth expenditure. It will damage a sector that is very successful and, in the best schools, world leading. It will make private schools less affordable for the non-super-wealthy and reduce bursaries for low income families. It will undermine the fundamental principle of education as a good that should not be taxed. It will potentially increase pressures on state schools. It will potentially have tax consequences for other providers such as non-school activities and universities. It will disrupt the education of an as yet unknown number of children already in private schools. And, of course, it will raise no tax from the wealthy who don't use private schools (eg those pre or post kids, or in state education).

Labour should find a better way to tax wealth, regardless of how the wealthy choose to spend it.

I will vote Tories only to avoid this policy, sadly. It's a crazy policy that will only put more pressure in the already struggling, resource lacking schools.
Meanwhile Labour parents will continue to send their children to PS as they will be able to still afford it.
Only the very rich will. It will create a society more elitist and divisive.

Well it’s not successful as it disadvantages state pupils and has a big impact on social mobility.

This surely will be one of many measures.

Disruption is on parents as they should look ahead and budget for all eventualities if they feel that a change in school would be detrimental. The numbers that would be impacted by this would be tiny. Many, many children move schools and actually there will be many many more children in schools with dangerous concrete who are getting zero support re disruption and are expected to just suck it up.

The fewer kids privately educated the better. Something seriously needs to be done about the impact private education has in this country. It’s shameful and I really hope labour has the guts to do something about it.Maybe they could also consider kids in the state system getting bonus UCAS points on the most popular courses the privately educated are over represented on.

Don't rely on that.

Gove is in favour of this

And at some point the stupid Tories will have rattled through everyone else as their leader and he'll end up at the fore

Gove is in favour of this

One person. And he decides, why exactly?

So silly

Well if only that applied to Labour, Nandy comes out with a pro TWAW statement and it then becomes a certain Lab policy.

Meanwhile Gove and the Tories get a free pass, as always.

Gove is a highly respected cabinet minister & a very smooth political operator, if he comes out with this, you can be sure its not a fringe view & one he sees political opportunity in.

lol at Nandy

If people don’t want this probably best to look at who’s telling them they’ll bring it in quickly

Ie Starmer and Labour

It was also in the Conservative Manifesto for a brief time but it had to be dropped as opposed by Backbenchers.

The Tories are decapitating their party with considerable frequency, and they will run short of candidates at some point, and it is entirely possible that Gove will come back in to the frame.

Making it to the manifesto means that it had considerable support (but not unanimous backing). Now, which backbenchers need to be bought off varies with who is courting them. Sunak dropped the pledge when he was wooing, and he's not going to last much longer. It could reappear under any future new leader, especially if Gove or courting Govian faction.

The likelihood is obv that you'll vote Tory and still behaved with this policy anyway, but if it's a deal breaker for you then that's that.

You might reflect on why schools are already struggling and lacking in resources after 14 years of Tory rule, while you vote for more of the same. Another 14 years of Tory rule Wil probably fix it I'm sure.

Laugh all you like & it most likely will be bought in by Labour, should they win, but if the Tories win, then they will bring it in too, Hunt needs more money for direct taxation tax cuts you and others call for..

Ok keep holding out for Gove bringing it in.

Starmer a tad more likely but as you wish.

I would not consider voting for labour unless they changed this policy

@jasflowers You can't compare oranges and apples then. If you want a similar tax system with gold plated services for ALL then you need to change it to mirror those countries in Scandinavia. I shouldn't have to pay for tuition directly like I didn't in Scandinavia. This could be money I am utilising elsewhere which would benefit the country in other ways. i.e. investments in start ups etc.

At the moment the UK wants the best but only at the expense of higher earners. There's also a difference between higher earner and being rich or wealthy. They don't tax companies like Amazon and Apple properly but expect "rich" people earning 100K to be taxed to the hilt to fund free services for the country.

Why is a company like Amazon entitled to £8m in tax credits and pays no corporation tax even though sales hit £24bn! That's just one company and I am sure more can be said about other companies as well.

Just to add I will vote for any party which changes school fees and university policy to FREE for ALL.
Every child gets a stipend paid to their school of choice - just like Scandinavia. It's fair and inclusive. It's the only way to do it and win everyone's vote.

Completely agree with this, I won't vote at all they are all awful

I went to private school along with many other girls who never had a holiday, didn't spend money on eating out, had one family car between both parents etc. Their whole finances were set up to prioritise fees.
I went there as a respite from the school I was first at.

Private schools tend to be very kind at acting as an exam centre for home ed kids and tend to keep the prices lower than other places.

https://fi.talent.com/en/tax-calculator?salary=100000&from=year&region=Finland
I got it from here. It looks like there is also municipal tax, as well as compulsory insurances etc. I admit to not being a Finnish tax expert though! It looks like those on lower incomes pay more tax than the UK equivalent here.

Regardless of the exact situation in Finland, the UK is low tax, especially for middle incomes. If we want all of those things you detail above (great healthcare, education etc), we need to accept that middle earners need to pay more. We can’t keep expecting the top few % of the population to keep funding everyone else. It doesn’t work. From the IFS:

“If the UK were to adopt the income tax and SSC rates of one of its higher-tax European neighbours, it would, in most cases and unsurprisingly, have higher tax rates and raise more revenue from both middle and high earners. But the difference in the tax levied would be larger for the median worker than for one near the top of the distribution. This is because average tax rates rise more quickly with income in the UK, and are already higher at the top relative to the median, than in most of the European countries that raise more revenue overall. Said differently, the UK has one of the more progressive income tax and SSC systems among European countries in the sense that average rates are higher at the top relative to the median. (This doesn't imply that the UK tax and benefit system is more progressive overall.)

The average tax rate (incorporating income tax and SSCs) on median full-time earnings in the UK was 28% in 2016-17 (the year for which this analysis was undertaken). This is much lower than it would have been under the tax systems of the other countries shown in the chart, for which the average was 44%. Some of this difference is accounted for by income tax, but most of it reflects lower SSCs paid by employers on their employees' salaries; there was very little difference in the SSCs paid directly by employees. Since 2016-17, the income tax personal allowance has been increased more quickly than inflation, which will have further reduced income tax payments at median earnings in the UK. By contrast, the UK average tax rate on a top earner in 2016-17 was 51%. This was still less than the 55% average amongst higher-tax European countries, but the gap was much smaller than for median earners. Indeed, the average tax rate of top earners in the UK was higher than in a number of countries that had a higher tax burden overall, such as Germany and Italy.”

I know that this refers to 2016/17, but the same idea applies now.

Sorry but income inequality in the UK between the wealthy and majority (actually) is pretty much the worst in Western Europe so you cannot compare Sweden and the UK in that sense as there isn't the income to tax!

I was going to vote labour for the first time in my life. But i was waivering as i can't bear keir. And this is enough to waiver me back tory. I can't abide the green eyed nature of a policy that is unlikely to raise any significant revenue and will cause hardship for many families. Life doean't have to be a race to the bottom - although the uk appears to be accelerating there at pace.

private schools are businesses so I absolutely WOULD vote in favour of a policy that stopped unfair tax breaks for private schools.
i doubt the 6/7% of people who use private secondaries are Labour voters anyway so this isn’t going to make much of a difference.

They also need to take away charity status from private schools - they are not charities.