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?

Without the higher earners willingly paying eye watering amounts of tax the issues for the lower earners will multiply.

How do you know this @coffeeaddict77? I know quite a few families who are going to have to send their children back into the state school system should this go ahead. Two of the families have 3 children. The others have 2 children. That’s just from conversations at pick up.

Yes this is the problem

Shame a lot don’t think the same about sen education

There’s a line, that pretty easy to find as to what a luxury is. Over and above the broadly used norms.
I’m sure you’d find both my house and my car inadequate and ‘have’ to pay to upgrade them. They are still within what the majority norms are.
The schools that private parents are finding inadequate are realistically adequate for 95% of children. They aren’t going to be as likely to get you into oxbridge, be quite as good in many ways or as easy to get to always. They are a luxury that smooths the way

That’s all you took from my post @Spendonsend? wow. I give up.

I have a SEN child who’s not ever going to access private schools. Like the majority.

Lol, it’s inequality that’s the bottom line issue. People have forgotten the purpose of taxation- to redistribute the wealth. It’s doesn’t have to be so concentrated to so few.

It’s happening already. Our local prep school had more people go back into the state sector for secondary last year, than in previous years. This is because of increased cost of living and the threat of VAT.

Many higher earners are willing to pay but even if they aren't is it something they have to be "willing" to do? I didn't realise that paying tax was a choice. Obviously some people will look into ways of avoiding paying on their earnings but I'm sure they're doing that anyway and even more reason to charge VAT on luxury items.

I was referring to the post about education being an investment (which doesn’t seem to be opinion for sen kids in a lot of peoples view) rather than specifically private schools. I have a child in sen school also

No thats not all i took from your post. And i am sorry i upset you. But through out this thread and a few other similar threads people have mentioned that people will go back into state education and be a cost /drain if VAT is applied to fees. I dont think like that. Yes we will have to invest in even more people and the policy might not raise enough to cover it, so more money will be found. But i think children are worth investing in so there you go.Im not actually in favour of VAT on fees as i dont think education should attract VAT. But id like state schols to be so good people ditch private schools anyway. I dont want children with sen being forced into private schools to get what they need. I want the state provision to be great. I accept that will cost more than this policy will raise.

Well i do. I think SEN education is a great investment. And yes it is a battle to get people to see it that way.

Every pound I earn comes from a PAYE salary so I can assure you I have no clever ways to avoid a single penny of tax.

The point is that if tax rules are too onerous for certain groups of people they will take steps to mitigate this.

In my case I might decide to work less if the marginal rate of tax I face is too great.

If PS becomes unaffordable I’ll work significantly less as I won’t need as much money.

All this reduces tax paid that others benefit from.

Higher rate tax payers are still left with eye watering amounts of money, otherwise they'd do a job that pays a much lower salary.

The average PS family pays (in school fees) around twice as much as a FT adult social carer will earn in a year.

So excuse me whilst i find a tiny violin.

Labour and Conservative Corporation Tax policy is hand in glove.

But when we did a CT rate of 19% the UK did not gain any competitive advantage, hence Sunak raised it to 25%, same as Labour say they will hold it at.

I didn't say no one would leave. I said I don't think that there will be a mass exodus. I meant to the extent that states schools are overfilled.

'uninformed' or just don't chime with your beliefs. Why resort to insults, the rudeness doesn't really solve anything. It's the Labour party, they probably aren't after the neo-liberals' votes!

Fundamentally, does the current government provide opportunity for a majority or do the rules and policies narrow opportunity for a majority, many sections of society are both feeling and knowing that the latter is true so they want change. It is not all wealthy pitched against the rest of us as some wealthy people, even with children in PS can see the bigger economic picture and are voting for something better.

It’s a gimmick this policy won’t give you the ‘better’

I’m fine with someone buying the best possible education they can for their child. If you have the cash it’s a good investment, better than wasting it.
I think I just found the ‘levelling up’ comment above a bit crass. The idea that a child needs private to be levelled up. Most children with needs aren’t going to be able to access these schools, nor will they be raised up to the level of other children through small class sizes and a bit of calm. They are disabled in any size class. They aren’t going to be admitted to any mainstream private. My own daughter would be refused this magical benefit. It’s for a select few, not the saviour of Sen children in a broad sense. In fact it’s a system that bars kids like mine. She can however pretty much go to a state school of her choice, that’s allowed.
It’s fine someone is paying for the best education they can for an sen child. But it’s not levelling up to their peers. It’s a paid advantage. I don’t begrudge it at all. But it felt uncomfortable to call it levelling up

I think most people recognise a change is needed and are not one policy voters, that is my point.

If you reduce your hours won't someone else be increasing their hours or maybe there will be an opportunity for someone else to have a job. I'm sure you are going to give me some story about why this won't happen but my point is the tax people pay is generally attached to the job they are doing rather than the person themselves and with some exceptions if they stop doing the job very often someone else will do it instead.

This is the only policy they have

Oh and the Nom Dom one which is equally bereft of sense or benefit

It is somehow working to make you think ‘better’ is coming but if you look clearly at the numbers the funding isn’t there.

Whatever @MirrorBack. But you’re wrong. You have no idea about our circumstances. For the record, we have a DS with SEN and mental health needs. He is in the state system because it is what is best for him. DD is completely different. The state system failed her. You have no idea how so don’t dare judge me.

“Higher rate tax payers are still left with eye watering amounts of money, otherwise they'd do a job that pays a much lower salary.”

What an absolutely, astoundingly ridiculous assumption that is! Let me go and quit my rewarding job that I studied and worked so hard to achieve at, because hey, if it wasn’t for the “eye watering amounts of money”, I would rather be a “whatever it is” that takes a lot less effort and pays less instead.

You can call it whatever you like but a higher rate tax payer (who can afford PS for say 2 children) takes home a lot more than a standard rate payer.

What an absolutely, astoundingly & ridiculous assumption to make that only the higher paid have stressful jobs and that lower paid ones take less effort... really!

Judging by the amount of time anti VAT supporters have to post on here, obviously not quite so stressful work.