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 don't have any skin in this game, and will vote LD as the only tactical option to remove Tories from this area. Otherwise I would vote Labour.

However, I don't agree with VAT being added. I think they should create a list of expectations of a charitable school and let them remain non taxable if they meet these new criteria. It seems such a pity to pull education from any child (which it will for those parents on the wire) and why lose the fabulous provision- just make sure it is in some way shared. That might mean some marginal increase in charges but hopefully not the % that VAT would add.

The tax is of course linked to the job but there are other factors at play.

If a role reduces from 5 days to 4 companies often take the lesser tasks and redistribute them to other usually lower paid employees.

If you halve your hours the total tax paid for the full role reduces significantly. A person earning £200k pays £20k more tax than the combined amount paid by 2 part timers covering the same role being paid £100k each.

Then there is the portability of many higher paid roles. Often it is easy to base yourselves overseas and still carry out the roles at which point the tax drop to the UK Treasury is 100%.

Of course each case will vary but the fact is that the best case scenario is a continuation of tax revenues but the most likely is a net fall in revenues due to one or more of the reasons listed above.

Yes but in a democracy you are attempting to vote in a government that reflects your values (as much as possible) and the Conservatives do not represent my values. In the long term more of the same of this is going to make things worse. Like I stated earlier on this thread, I have voted for the Green party as Labour would be a wasted vote.

Well here’s hoping your pockets are deep in the end.

You are not impacted by this policy but the tax burden could easily shift to you to fill gaps.

Pages and pages of circular arguments.

Not even remotely surprised by the lack of knowledge and understanding.

Just deflections, exagerrations, appeals to emotion, moralising etc..

And people wonder why we get the politicians that we have. Well, they are a reflection of the electorate who prefers emotion over factual policies.

It doesn't matter how much you try to drag down higher earners now.

The UKs decline is happening or not whether you inplement a 100% marginal tax because its infrastructure is falling apart (I am not even going to bother explaining this because it would probably fly over tour heads).

But please do try to keep pretending that £0.7bn/year in tax is going to magically fix state schools or balance the scales of inequality.

No, you are still going to get a lot poorer as lower earner. Quite a lot poorer over the next 5 years.

And thats on you for voting the Tories in at the 2019 GE.

Its called consequences. Don't like it? Tough. Thats what you voted for.

Or maybe the company would employ a full time worker to cover you. Maybe they were previously unemployed and while on a lower pay they are now doing full time hours and it will be one more person paying tax and not receiving benefits. That's what happened when my highly paid manager left. As you say there are many factors at play but you reducing your hours will not necessarily be a negative for your company or the tax payer.

@coffeeaddict77

Seriously, just stop posting this drivel. You don't have a clue as to how a company operates at the higher-skilled level.

These people are not "replaceable" like you are.

Thats why they are paid a high salary. Their skills are rare so they are in demand. Going PT to FT is happening more and more now, amd nobody is getting hired as cover. There is no need as experienced people can advise less experienced people, so the work gets done via technology.

Thats what improved productivity means. You do more work with less people hours.

Some of you folks seem intent on posting when you don't have s clue about what you are talking about.

This is also a very common problem in the UK. Anti-intellectualism and amateurism is rife.

That should read "going PT from FT"

Still making pathetic attempts to try and annoy people who disagree with you @BouncingJAS?😂

@coffeeaddict77

Its pretty simple. Don't comment on issues you have zero clue about.

Not hard to do really.

Perhaps follow your own advice.

Sorry but i've missed your long list of qualifications across education, economics and tax behaviours.

The reality is you are just another random voice on a controversial thread, just like mine is.

I will reserve (full) judgement until i read the reasoning behind this plan but the IFS have said it will raise between 1.5 and 1.7bn and that it will not lead to a mass exodus.

I assume they have some idea of what they are talking about or don't you think so?

@jasflowers

IFS does the modelling based on assumptions.

I have ample experience doing complex economic and financial modelling.

Their assumptions have ridiculously wide confidence intervals, which basically means that the "result" is a poor educated guess.

Thats fine in policy terms. But what is not fine is that the "result" has been sold to people like you as credible, when it is very, very far from that.

None of this is hard to explain to people with a modicum of understanding in these matters.

But just look at this thread. Its amazing really.

We were forced to send my DC to private school for their last 2 years due to how bad their state school had become under Tory policies, and the impact on their mental health. Unfortunately we live in an area where most schools are RI/inadequate, despite it often being claimed on here that 90% (or close to it) of state schools are good or outstanding and so children shouldn’t need to go to private school. It wasn’t something that we wanted to do but were left with no alternative and so I will vote Labour in the hope that they will improve our local schools, so that someone else doesn’t have to get into debt for their child’s education.

Perhaps you could show us the results of your complex economic and financial modelling as you are so much better at it than the IFS.

Did you also trust the Covid modelling or do you think that also led to some pretty awful policy decisions which much like the VAT issue were lapped up by many people because it suited their agenda at the time.

The fact that Starmer and co have put such a tiny revenue raising policy at the forefront of their policy messaging speaks volumes. Unfortunately it plays out well to the uninformed who lap it up.

Where is your evidence that Starmer and Co have put this at the forefront of anything?
The sole extent of discussions about it seems to be people frothing on here.

We aren't anti-intellectual. We are anti-fake and bullshit.

Did the IFS do Covid modelling too?

Don't encourage @BouncingJAS or we'll all have to be told about their 4 degrees, career as a very important actuary and how we're unworthy of even being sneered at by someone so much more important than all of us. Amazing they find time to post on here what with having a brain the size of a planet and all.

I’d stop digging now if I were you.

I'm not the one digging and bullshitting.

This thread is a great example of the Dunning Kruger effect in all its glory.

😂It is quite pathetic though that rather than actually debate the issue they resort just telling people they are stupid. As if that is going to persuade people to think this VAT on private school fees is a bad idea.

TBH I think they would be better off committing to improve and properly invest in the state sector to bring it up to a compatible level as the private sector. Address the sink schools issue, why are they sink schools (not just academise them and then shrug)? Get to the bottom of why in some areas parents feel no choice other than to stretch themselves for private education.

Perhaps they could also throw in properly funding SEND and student support services, looking at class sizes. That would be a vote winner.

One of our local secondary schools has announced they are only going to allow all students to do 7 GCSEs, also due to staffing only the top 2 sets will be allowed to do triple science. There are many average earner parents now frantically trying to move their DC school before next September. This is a huge secondary school with 1000s of students.