If VAT is added on Private School Fees, then it will be added onto University fees as well

[AgathaCrispee]

Does it worry you that this new policy of adding VAT on educational fees will also be applied to university fees as well?

AIBU to think this will put university out of the reach of the majority of families who will support their kids through Uni?

Also, for those who do go the level of debt they will come out with will be really big.

If they can apply VAT to private school educational fees then they've setup a case for Independent schools argue that it must be applied to Uni as well.

Is this going to create a situation where only the wealthy can send their kids to Uni?

I'm wondering why no one is asking this question!!

I just think that we are in very bad times at the moment. Everyone has to pay their share and some things are a luxury, like private schools, like tutoring, like some university courses.

if we ensure that people who can afford private schools, tutoring and universities pay a bit more, then we can afford to make state education better for everyone.

We can also afford to ensure that we subsidise exactly things like nurses, engineers and what society actually needs.

Money will always buy advantage... Paying more for the house in catchment to outstanding local schools, pricing "locals" out... Getting your child piano lessons... Swimming lessons ... Being able to drive them to competitions... affording to take them into cities and to talks, theatre shows, museums, art exhibitions etc.

Anything above that is something that only benefits less than half of the population.

Erm no. Do teachers, doctors, nurses, dentists etc not benefit everyone?
Not to mention the benefits of having an educated society - less crime, higher tax revenue, healthier...

If you are able to pay for university/ tutoring, you are able to pay the extra VAT.

Not everyone who goes to university is wealthy. We should do our best to ensure that university is affordable to those who are capable of studying at that level regardless of socioeconomic status.

I’m happy for my taxes to support students. Higher education is not a luxury. We need skilled professionals.

Private schooling is a luxury and should be taxed as such.

I am happy for my taxes to support a great state education. I don’t think it is fair that some people can buy an advantage via private schools or via tuition without paying VAT on it.

with regards to university, I believe that studying topics that are beneficial to society such as nursing, medicine, engineering etc should be subsidised. I have no problem with charging VAT on courses such as English literature, theology, history, etc. We need a few of those but not all that there currently is.

If someone want to study a topic for their own interest and the put “graduate” on their CV (and get an advantage) that is great but that is actually a luxury. If the people who are able to do that pay a little bit more, than we can afford to train more doctors, nurses and engineers. As a society, we need those.

with regards to university, I believe that studying topics that are beneficial to society such as nursing, medicine, engineering etc should be subsidised. I have no problem with charging VAT on courses such as English literature, theology, history, etc. We need a few of those but not all that there currently is.

But we currently have a labour market that values the skills gained from subjects such as English and History.
For example, lots of history graduates are recruited by top accountancy firms because they value the skills developed on these programmes.

You would also run the risk of these subject only being studied by people who can afford them. A two tiered higher education system like you suggest isn't good for anyone.

Too simplistic @MyBoiledEggIsTooSoft

A nursing graduate who moves to Australia to work isn’t generating benefit to the UK taxpayer, whilst a fine art graduate working for a gaming company brings in tax and export revenue.

I have no problem with charging VAT on courses such as English literature, theology, history, etc. We need a few of those but not all that there currently is

Presumably you wouldn't mind if your children/grandchildren weren't taught any history or English or RE then...?

Problem is, where does it begin and end? Specialist school helping severely disabled children?

I think you are wrong here actually. I said we needed a few to study English, history etc. just so we can have teachers.

People studying lots of subjects we do not need is a luxury. And if accountably firms rather hire history graduate than apprentices (which they can train), that is a limit to social mobility in itself. Most people (50% +) do not go to university, either due to background or due to not being able to afford it.

We should add VAT so that courses that indeed are needed get more money. The people who are able to pay should co tribute to the system.

It is not perfect but it is a start, we can improve the system later.

I think you are wrong here actually. I said we needed a few to study English, history etc. just so we can have teachers.
Do you think it would be okay for only those who come from wealthier backgrounds to study these subjects then?
Don't you think it's important to have diversity in professions?

People studying lots of subjects we do not need is a luxury. And if accountably firms rather hire history graduate than apprentices (which they can train), that is a limit to social mobility in itself. Most people (50% +) do not go to university, either due to background or due to not being able to afford it.

For a start do you know how competitive higher apprenticeships are? In many cases they are far more competitive than going to university the traditional way. They aren't the magic wand solving social mobility in the way you think they are....

Also, the vast majority of young people who are capable of going to university and want to go to university go. Those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds tend to choose local universities and live at home but they do participate in higher education.

I don’t know how this would work in practice, but I think it is bad that a lot of people who can afford university do lots of subsidised courses, then put them on their CV and gets an unfair advantage compared to those who cannot afford to. It is ridiculous that accounting firms rather hire someone with a history degree. That is a kick in the teeth for those who never thought of university because their parents didn’t go.

it is actually the same with tutors. I don’t know how much a tutor is (we never used one), £30? £ 50? That is half a weekly food shop for some people, just so others can get a leg up for their children.

And then they are arguing that it isn’t a luxury. Of course it is a luxury, of course they can do it, but they should pay tax on it.

The whole public sector is breaking and state education is in a terrible state. It needs the money and some people can afford it. It should not be tax exempt.

That is a kick in the teeth for those who never thought of university because their parents didn’t go

That argument doesn't hold up though. 40% of 18 year olds now go to uni - the majority of those won't have had parents who went. Demand increases each year - and across all income groups. Finally those from low income households can get £10k a year maintenance so that shouldn't be a barrier.

Now I know that the threshold for full maintenance hasn't increased, and that the value of loans also hasn't kept up with inflation - and those factors URGENTLY need addressing, but adding VAT to fees isn't the answer - and would have perverse effects: making philosophy degrees more expensive is bad for social mobility.

Everything @titchy just said.

My PhD had an element that particularly focused on first generation students and applying to university. I found that for 18 year olds studying on a level 3 course university was seen as a natural progression, regardless of whether you were a first generation student or from a lower socioeconomic background. What did differ was the type of university, a tendency to stay local and the type of subject.

Non traditional students are already less likely to make choices (subject or university type) that lead to higher paying careers. Making certain subjects more expensive would only make this gap wider.

Frankly with the amount of misinformation about so think we need more people trained in critical thinking ( English , history etc ) than less

Not really. It would put too many people out of work who rely on the credulous.

Anyway, you can lead a horse to water, as they say.

People might see what a farce the policy is

Look around you. Look at the ludicrous policies people are queuing up to support.

If you want policies to be evidence based and subject to critical thinking, you wouldn't start here , thank goodness. Otherwise my retirement would be well fucked.

No idea what it has to do with your retirement but this one takes the biscuit.

Lack of critical thinking is how we end up with poor policy decisions, that get support at the ballot box.

Overall I think that tax take will go down. The IFS paper is a political hatchet job that doesn’t look at the wider landscape.

A lot has been said about the costs of education on here. Adding VAT to school fees will be the straw that breaks the camels back for many aspirant families.

What a lot of people don’t know is that the highest rate of tax in the UK is 60%. This is levied on earners between £100k and £125k because they loose the personal allowance. Anyone earning in this space or just over will pull their kids out then jam the savings into their pension and retire early with a nice tax free lump sum…

@Thesmokinggnu I don’t understand the point you are trying to make in your last paragraph. Could you expand it? It’s not clear why that’s a bad thing in policy makers minds? Or rather why the moral argument out ways the financial argument and which one you are trying to make.

I think part of the problem seems to be that I don’t understand is labour are trying to make an ethical or financial argument.

@WannabeMathematician

So my point is that the tax take labour hope to make won’t be there. Like many occasions where you put up taxes, the amount you actually raise goes down.

To be honest the Tory party have a lot to answer for too in the way aspirational middle to high earners with children are already being shafted.

i know many high earners that have given up, max out their pensions and stick up two fingers to HMRC.

a good podcast to watch is https://ifs.org.uk/articles/how-fix-our-irrational-income-tax-system

Amazing how many people have strong views but no understanding of the position. Education is a VAT exempt sector, charitable status has no impact on VAT but provides other “tax breaks”. Contrary to other comment almost all universities have charitable status.

The way the proposed legislation is worded VAT would be payable on Uni fees (and possibly nursery fees also). It is possible that the wording could be changed to single out the private school sector but that may leave the Govt open to legal challenge for discrimination, there are already legal challenges to the existing proposals under Human Rights legislation