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?

Who knows, but I do know that Labour will at least try to improve our country. The Tories have had 13 years to try and they have failed.

It's like staying in an abusive relationship because you're worried, don't believe, think you won't find, or don't deserve better. We all deserve better.

It is the worst kind of politics - the politics of envy.

Its quite refreshing (in a way) to hear the return of that old bullshit phrase.

There are plenty of cis women who are quite happy with TWAW. We're not all 'phobes thanks.

Do you agree with the no bonus cap announced by Reeves today? - out of interest

I won't be voting Labour because of this. I've never voted Tory and I don't intend to start now either, but Labour surely won't get my vote.

The policy is not going to have a massive impact on me, at most I'll have 2 more years of fees for one child, but I hate the way middle and higher earners are always targeted just for the sake of appealing to the wider population, with no benefit to the economy or society. This is not levelling up, it's levelling down.

What would be the purpose of them accumulating money when they are a charity? There is no UBO to benefit from that.

The people I know who put their kids private will continue to put them private - 20% VAT won't make a difference.

Like someone said above, nothing could make me vote Tory. I think Rishi is comfortably middle ground but my bones chill when I think about them ousting him and Cruella coming in. We vote for the party not the politician.

But do I think the private schools should charge Vat? Yes. Public schools are failing and if more invested parents stopped using private school and put their children in the state system, we'd all be better off.

Personally I don’t think private schools should be charities so it’s not a vote winner to protect that status for me. Legal sex is a far bigger driver for me as I would really struggle to vote in any party that doesn’t protect women from harm and I think sex based rights are really important.

This.

You would be. Parents would use the fee money to buy properties in the best state catchment areas thereby driving prices up and pushing out lower earning families.

They would employ private tutors with the aim of hoovering up all the grammar school places.

How does this benefit everyone else more than the current system?

Isn’t it just going to mean that state schools are much more full and still totally underfunded?

Most of our local private school (not London) is attended by children of doctors, teachers & other professional people who work hard and are not the ‘super rich’. They won’t be able to pay an extra 20% which will leave the schools struggling to stay open I think, and mean that there is massive pressure on local secondaries to provide places.

It seems like a gimmicky, popularist policy with unintended negative consequences.

By that reasoning then I assume you support VAT being added to university fees, wrap around school hours, dance clubs, music lessons, sports clubs etc. All are similar luxuries.

You could even extend it to nurseries if fairness is your motivation.

On the face of it, yes. As long as the bonuses are fairly taxed and the profits of the banks and companies employing them. Please work on that too 😉

Labour have lost our vote for this - not because of the personal impact but because it’s an all round shit policy. Tories never had our vote to start with

When deciding on primary schools, we weighed up the option of moving slightly closer to the local outstanding state primary (not just Ofsted outstanding but wonderful in many other ways). Local catchment properties all £1M+ in value, wealthy and invested PTA, lots of enrichment etc etc. Basically full of people who could afford private but didn’t use it because they had such a great state option. We decided against for the sake of our careers - wrap around care was all but non-existent and neither of us were willing to give up work.

Affording secondary was always going to be a challenge unless I started working in private sector so the threat of this policy has pushed us to move into catchment of the excellent state secondary - just awaiting completion of house purchase. I will reduce my hours to minimal once DC start and we will have a more laid back lifestyle. It goes without saying that someone else a little further away is now going to miss out on the space that our DC will take. That someone else is probably one of those sitting here talking about how great this policy is and they have no sympathy for those wealthy enough for fees.

This policy will mostly affect those who could never have afforded the fees - those who can may not be rich but have enough money to have options. They have made whatever sacrifices were necessary to pay and will continue to do so - very few will pull their children out and send them to a failing school. We will see the impact in the next 5-10 years when it is too late to change

If you add 20% to the cost of private education people will just send their children for 20% less of the time. My guess is they will miss early prep school years.

Let Starmer know he’s heading up your party of choice

Interesting though it’s up your street wrt wealth divide

It seems like a gimmicky, popularist policy with unintended negative consequences.

It is

Those things do not have charitable status, so aren’t comparable.

I was actually going to suck it up and vote Labour. They’d finally seemed to accept (more than grudgingly) that sex might actually be relevant and maybe, just maybe, the stonewall ‘no debate’ approach is nonsense. Don’t like the VAT suggestion and I’m entirely sure it will have unintended effects that those promoting it will cry about, but I can’t fix that.

But everything I read that gives an inkling of current labour policies/approaches is rubbish.

eg the other day I read that they want to mandate that various jobs that simply don’t need a degree, will now need a degree. That’s damaging and exclusionary. And can only be an idea put forward because they need to do something with the glut of unnecessary graduates Blair’s 50% target created.

eg they want to ban all ‘conversion therapy’ which would not be a problem if Labour didn’t think simply asking ‘are you sure? Could there be any another reason you feel this way?’ Counts as conversion therapy. Until they engage with the topic properly and with application of logic instead of dogma, they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near it.

eg rather than impose any real penalties for pumping sewage into rivers, it thinks allowing the regulator to consider blocking senior manager bonuses will actually do anything. They show a huge naivety about remuneration possibilities and options. The water companies will run rings around them, even if the regulator wasn’t toothless.

eg it suggests it can find us more neighbourhood police, while simultaneously having its members shout about defunding police and saying that it’s not going to put in more money. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

The Tories truly need a bit of time in the wilderness, but Labour is not ready for power.

If VAT on private school fees is the deciding factor on how you vote, you need to give your head a serious wobble!

Most people vote purely in self interest. Only 7% of children are privately educated. That 7% includes the super rich who won't even notice the addition of VAT. So the proportion of parents that will have to either adjust their living standards or use state schools is extremely small. If you can't afford it, you can't have it but you could always work harder or get a better job.

I apologise I was getting the charitable status and vat mixed up. Labour have dropped the idea of taking away charitable status ( so most private schools aren't eligible for corporation tax etc whereas some are)

There are huge benefits. Most private schools have investment portfolios. They don’t pay tax on income from these investments either. They don’t pay tax on a surplus, even if it’s sitting in a bank account. There’s even a tax loophole for parents wealthy enough to pay a years fee upfront. The school invests that sum, gets the returns tax-free, the parent gets a discount and the school and parent split what’s left when the child leaves.

Just pay the VAT and stop moaning. Tax is needed to pay for housing and the NHS. Everyone has known VAT on private school fees has been coming for years.

Early prep school years cost roughly half of the amount senior years cost so the saving in the early years isn’t as significant.

What a lot of people will do is the opposite which is they will use prep schools with the aim of getting a grammar place for the senior years when the fees start getting really expensive.