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?

We’ve got to something inbetween mani pedis.

Not really and no different to the extra admin the implementation of the VAT on PS will necessitate. In the same way as the Extra childcare hours allocation in nurseries is based on income treshholds, the same system used in nursery settings can be used for schools.

A fair tax system, is definitely something I would vote for, if only to save democracy. History teaches that It is not really sustainable to have economic and political systems that only benefit and enhance the rich. It makes everything insecure and personally that is not a society I want to occupy.

Yes, but the "state demanders" aren't trying to persuade you to vote against a policy. If this thread was started to try and persuade "floaters" not to vote Labour as it will increase school fees I think attitudes like yours have done the opposite.

You keep suggesting these ideas as if the VAT on private school fees is a public funding question but 95% of us can't use the services of these schools so why is it different to any other business?

I posted it earlier but yet another demonstrable, factual indicator of the huge inequalities of incomes came out today with the new report, by the Academy for Medical Sciences reporting on “appalling decline” of the health of children under the age of five in the UK – with soaring rates of obesity and tooth decay. UK ranks 30th out of 49 OECD countries for infant mortality. When people read and hear this, how do they feel about their privilege of being able to complain about VAT on school fees?

I don’t know if you can to be honest, if you overpay self assessment they send back but maybe it’s possible to send a covering letter saying it’s a donation.

Hand over money directly to your local schools then. They won’t reject it.

People give money to schools all the time.

If you go on to the HMRC website it explains how to make additional voluntary payments.

The payments can be made through your internet banking or in person at any high street bank.

It is remarkably easy to do yet considering how many people claim they’d be happy to pay more tax, it raised almost nothing.

I wonder why that is?

Why don’t you then instead of claiming you really want to pay more but just can’t find an avenue to ensure it’s ring fenced for state school use?

You can’t get much more ring fenced than turning up at the school gates with a bag of cash for the headmaster.

I think you are confusinsg me with another poster. I haven't said anything about ring fencing. I also haven't said I haven't given money to state schools.

I would be happy to pay more tax but trouble is if a paid an extra £1000 to hmrc it would be drop in ocean and make absolutely no diff to services so it is pointless me doing, it needs to be done on mass. Personally at the minute I’d rather contribute to a charity that’s filling the gaps in the services that gov aren’t providing

One high earner donating is not likely to have a huge impact. Even if it was a lot of money, the Tory party would just use it to reduce taxes for other high earners in the hope they would win the next election. Hardly surprising that people who want the country to be more equitable would prefer to give money to charity or directly to schools and vote for Labour in the hope that they reduce the huge economic disparities in the UK the moment.

People could campaign to get it as policy. Sounds good to me.

Everyone seems happier someone else is paying even though they talk about caring, so I doubt anyone will suggest their own pockets

If they get in and do it, I hope the kings ransom they're promising that it will bring in never materialises because so many people have to drop their kids out of private education, then there's a mad dash to find state school spaces for them, ensuring everyone can see that it wasn't some great idea to raise millions, but another spiteful envy tax move from the Labour party. Their kids will be alright in private education though, mixing with the offspring of the truly wealthy, as they'll claim everything they can on expenses enabling them to afford it. I'd rather shit in my hands and clap than vote for the Labour party.

Ok, so I’ve realised I’m trying to debate with someone who thinks some random amounts of cash to random schools is a substitute for policy and strategy 🤦‍♀️
Maybe this amazing idea could also be applied to the NHS. Instead of funding it through adequate taxation and planning we could all just drop in the odd tenner to our local hospital when we happen to be passing?

Apologies it was @MirrorBack who you were quoting.

So you want others to pay more tax just not you at the moment. I’m not sure how well that plays if everyone follows suit.

At my DC's school we paid termly donations, obviously you don't have to if you can't afford it.

This is all deflection though as your proposition suggests that the two things are comparable but they are not, the public funding of state schools benefit everyone and an option available to everyone, a private school is a business that is not open to all (93 % of the population) as it is dependent on purchasing power - if you can't afford it, you can't have it, why should it be treated differently to any other business in that regard? Why should others via tax breaks fund the private school education of the wealthy, how anyone can justify that morally is beyond the rationality of most of us. Again, with wealth disparity fuelling extreme levels of inequality in this country how can you possibly think people can afford huge tax donations.

I'll place this here again as it seems that nobody wants to acknowledge this, the data not opinion, not emotions, the data, indicates this huge disparity in UK wealth now is having stark and depressing outcomes for many. A report out TODAY by the Academy for Medical Sciences claims that, in recent years, progress on child health has stalled.The UK ranks 30th out of 49 OECD countries for infant mortality!!

Co-chairman Professor Sir Andrew Pollard, from the University of Oxford, said:
"There is clear evidence in the report that tackling childhood health conditions, addressing inequalities and providing early years social support can change the future of health and prosperity.”

This is all deflection

I think you are deflecting from the ability to pay and have that policy instead

It’s not random amounts to random schools - this was just used as an example of how high earners who have children in state education could very well pay in to the system that educates their children for free. If it were pushed ahead as policy, it would involve means testing parents and ensuring that those who can contribute termly donations to the school do so.

Exactly. And it goes beyond the childhood years.
People in private schools are still accessing the state supported best universities disproportionately. They are paying for that benefit too. Then they pay for the old boy network too. It’s not as simple as just paying for schooling. They are paying, and they access a lot later on that’s a lot harder to access later on for other pupils. My tax supports that happening at university level. Many people also use state primaries prior to prep/ secondary school realistically. Do we really need tax breaks for a luxury that promotes inequality in society further?

No I’m saying If the tax went up I wouldn’t mind, I’m just saying it would be absolutely pointless if I choose to pay more tax it would make not one jot of diff if I pay in isolation. I am better off donating to a charity or directly to a school where my small amount would make a diff

So affluent schools in affluent areas become a state/ private hybrid with extra funding effectively?
Raising tax for all just slightly, across all brackets would introduce far far more money to the system and effectively redistribute wealth much better.