To think that people who agree with VAT on private school fees but not on university fees, are hypocrites?

[Blanket601]

If Labour add VAT to private school fees, they should also add VAT to university fees. Or no VAT on either. The principle and rule, should be the same.

Why is only private school education being platformed. I think we all know why.

Totally agree. Which is why I’ve never voted Tory to date, even though it was better for us if I did.

People don’t understand my OP at all. I’m tired of explaining it.

It’s all in this thread.

The schoold do not get a tax break. They pay vat. Unlike state schools. There is no tax break.

@Snugglemonkey

"No, some private schools are, but actually many are non profit making. They put all the money into the education of the children."

That's not the case. They put the surplus into capital spend like buildings, which is a tax dodge.

Eton for example owns around 200.

It is certainly not all put back into educating children.

You’d have to be very well off indeed for voting Tory to make any difference. Most people who think they are voting Tory out of self interest or are busy virtue signaling about not voting Tory aren’t being helped by Tory governments.

@Snugglemonkey

"We subsidise state education. Private education is not subsidised at all."

Most private schools are registered charities. Which means they claim VAT exemption on business rates and donations. That is a subsidy.

Probably very true. Probably won’t do it any more. By the by really. Labour will not get my vote again until they recognise women, based on that little known bit of evidence we seem to have.

My parents could never have afforded private education, but I was able to go on to Higher Education. Participation in Higher level education is more accessible to people of all income levels so long as the academic level can be obtained. Yes loans need to be repaid, but at point of access there is not the same barrier to entry that there is in private schooling. So I do not accept the 'equivalence' you speak of.

And there was me thinking that a university education was for the most intelligent (irrespective of wealth), and that private schools were for the most wealthy (irrrespective of intelligence).

The vast majority of the sector is not like Eton at all! Our school is non profit making, owns no property other than the buildings, has no swimming pool or stables or any of the other things being thrown about.

It is a much more typical independent school attended by the children of doctors, dentists etc, not people with bottomless pockets.

Not in comparison to state schools. Private schools pay out far more in comparison, they are the subsidised ones.

Same for me. Sadly you’ve misunderstood the point I was making. Tired of explaining it.

In that case you should complain to the charity commission because it would be a fundamental breach of charity law to use the charity’s assets in a way that did not further its charitable purposes.

By which I mean if you have evidence that Eton is misappropriating charitable funds to dodge tax (which tax? whose?) instead of to fund education then that would be a scandal that should be reported to the charity commission.

Of course Eton is in the highly unusual position of having a centuries old endowment. Presumably the trustees are sufficiently responsible that they aim to invest and grow that endowment to provide for the school's future. The fact that they don't (presumably) immediately spend every penny on educational running costs does not mean that they don't spend the money on education - their horizon is presumably centuries.

But they are by no means a typical school.

The difference is that people have a choice about private school vs state school, whereas for university you basically have only the choice of going to university; apprenticeship (often not available/ relevant to many subjects); or nothing. Also, university is, with a few exceptions, state-funded with the fees 'topping up' the costs, so it's not the same as private school.

I'm not even really in favour of VAT on private schools, as I think that will just increase the educational divide between rich and poor, and it would be better to increase funding to improve state schools (which would presumably mean increasing taxes on wealth/ high earnings- this seems to me a fairer form of tax than VAT). But I don't think you can equate private school and university fees.

How is it in any way comparable? University is for anyone, provided they get the grades. Private school is only for those who can afford it.

Vat should be on all training/education or nothing.

Absolutely this. People shouldn’t just cherry pick depending on what is popular with voters. There needs to be a general principle; all education/training should be taxable, or all should not. That should go from pre school all the way to higher/further education and post-grad qualifications.

If Labour do change the law as proposed you potentially have:

• no VAT on education to age 4
• VAT charged on education for ages 4-17
• no VAT for adult education.

So teaching a 17 year old in a “school” is subject to VAT but teaching them what could potentially be the same content in a university at 18 is VAT free. So it’s just children’s education which is taxed.

We don’t usually base VAT law on the availability of a state alternative and to do so where the state alternative is so variable and sometimes completely inappropriate for the child in question is imo very unfair.

Why?

If we were only talking about taxing "private" universities and there were free state-funded alternatives that people could choose instead, then I would understand and support your argument. Private universities would be the luxury option, and as such, they would attract VAT. However, that is not how our system is set up.

Private education is an optional luxury that parents can choose if they are able to afford it. If not, their kids will still have access to an education. Higher education is not comparable.

Surely we all understand that some things are free or cheaper for some people on the grounds of disability or other need and not for others? I go to slimming world and pay for it. Others at the group have been referred by GPs and the first sessions are free. I am barred from parking in some areas where others can park. If there is need, then there should be free/discounted/ vat free provision while the rest pay.

And as for what will happen to private schools - the one near me became an academy a few years ago and is no longer a private school. I suspect that is what will happen to many. They become a school that all can apply to.

In other words, the staff can continue teaching there if they wish, and the buildings continue to be school buildings. But what decides which children go there is no longer the size of their parents’ or grandparents’ bank accounts. And that is at it should be.

Where's the money coming from to convert these schools to academies and mixed sex facilities etc?

You’re HILARIOUS! No it’s not the same, and no-one thinks for a second that it is - but nice suggestion, if you’d like to ensure MORE kids from private school get even MORE of the uni places than they already do as smart, able, ambitious WC kids are priced out even more.

University is an extension of state schooling, private education is a business.

That would be a valid argument if there was no alternative but there is, PS is a luxury choice, simply unavailable to the vast majority.

There is a report out now that says the UK has some of the most poorly nourished/poor health under 5's in the developed world, with longer term costs of £16bn per year.
This is why Labour are taxing you, to limit this damage but still you moan.

You can be certain that non of these u5's will have parents who can afford private school.

Strange how the anti vat posters aren't putting up threads about this shocking state of affairs, they are just interested in maintaining their wealth, whatever the cost to everyone else.

And private healthcare?

And being allowed to buy a bigger house in a more affluent area?