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.

‘Remember, not all holidays are abroad. Hotels abroad don't charge vat because shock horrorthey're not in the UK and subject to UK tax laws. Which is quite obvious. ‘

Yup! I hope the poster didn’t go to private school themselves, not much of an advertisement for the quality of education if they did…

You were the one mentioning £30k per year so what I said is very relevant. You are misinformed if you believe everyone is paying £30k per year for school fees.

I don’t think that university should only be for the wealthy but the point is that not every private school parent is wealthy either so all this policy does is create more elitism without raising an amount of tax revenue that would have a significant beneficial impact on state schools. I am also concerned that other currently non-VATable activities/services will end up being subject to VAT. The UK would very much be an outlier charging VAT on education. No other country in Europe does. People have every right to be concerned about what will be subject to VAT next.

I can't disagree with you that being a high earner is "to do with what people are paid"...

What's the objective evidence that what people are paid "often isn't justified"? Who decides what "isn't justified" other than the employer? If the rich were less rich, or there were fewer rich people, I'm even more curious how that would help lower and middle earners "contribute more tax"?

For now, high earners subsidise everything for low earners, and low earners subsidise nothing. I can't believe this even merits discussion.

Nobody's asking for pity. Let's leave out the pity, and other emotions.

The reason for discussing affordability is that if private school parents' choices change - if they become less willing and able to pay school fees - it affects everyone. Less tax, more cost, more disruption and more burden on state schools. Which makes this policy a crap idea, unless your motivation is "equality" eclipsing all other possible considerations.

It's easy to make us all more equal, but that's not to be confused with making anything better.

£200k a year? I’m talking about the cost of 14 years of education at an average private school. APD is often far less than the equivalent VAT.

In any case, you’re missing the point. Let’s assume 2 families have exactly the same amount of income and wealth. 1 family uses state schools (at great cost to the taxpayer) and pays no extra VAT because they spend it on holidays or gifts of lump sums to their children. Family 2 decides to spend their money on education (saving the taxpayer) and they are penalised by having to pay more tax. Family 2 makes a greater tax contribution purely because of how they decide to spend their money.

This is not about taxing wealth. It’s about taxing those who choose to spend money on education.

But contribution to society goes a lot further than that. What about a NHS doctor who is paid substantially less than a hedge fund manager? Who is making the biggest contribution to society. Value and contribution go well beyond the £££.

I do use a state school. Like many private school parents, I have one child in state and the other in private. Where have I said that I asked for a handout - in fact, it’s the other way round as my dad is shit with money and I’ve had to bail him out on a number of occasions.

I am not whining, I am pointing out that (1) many schools cost less than the £30k a year that has been repeatedly mentioned on this thread and (2) not every private school parent is wealthy. This policy won’t impact the rich, it will impact the parents who took their kids out of state school because, for whatever reason, it couldn’t support their needs and who have very little disposable income left to play with. They have every right to express concern.

I hope the poster didn’t go to private school themselves, not much of an advertisement for the quality of education if they did…

No I didn’t. I went to a state school. And I’m fully aware of how the VAT system works. My point is that it’s ridiculous that a family is hit with a UK tax penalty for choosing to spend their money on education rather than flash holidays.

I am currently job hunting. Anything with a vaguely decent age has a requirement of a degree. What choice do people have to get a degree that they don't have to currently pay for?

Compared with "do parents of children in private school have an option"

I mentioned the cost of private schools near me is all.

Show me parents earning minimum wage, or national average wage sending their children to private schools..

But they're not. Those flights are taxed. Travel within the UK is taxed. But we can't control money spent OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTRY.

If you want to not pay VAT on private school, send them to an untaxed school outside of the country seems the obvious answer.

Well my niece and nephew are both doing degree apprenticeships so their fees are funded. There are also many well paid jobs that don’t need a degree. My electrician cousin earns far more than me.

They are very hard to get, so your niece and nephew are very lucky. And also, they're for a very limited number of degrees. The fee's are still paid. They're just paid by someone other than the student - so not equivalent what so ever.

Show me a free university degree in this country?

Show me a free electrician course. My nephew did plumbing (too few apprenticeships so he self funded) and it was far from cheap.

There are a lot of people in this country not earning minimum wage. Are you now stating that teachers, social workers, police officers, paramedics and nurses are wealthy? Because I personally know people in all of those professions who have privately educated children. There are many people in between those on minimum wage and those that are wealthy.

Comfortably off. They earn decent salaries, yes. And will mainly be university educated themselves. I presume the majority will have benefitted from a free degree too.

‘My point is that it’s ridiculous that a family is hit with a UK tax penalty for choosing to spend their money on education rather than flash holidays.’

Wise up. Depending on where you have a ‘flash’ holiday you more than likely WILL be paying a form of tax on it, a tax imposed by that country. Tourist tax, accommodation tax, tax on food or alcohol or activities.
And on the nine ‘flash’ ones too.
I suppose you’re aware that there are people who both use state school AND don’t go on ‘flash’ holidays?
are you suggesting that the U.K. government start charging taxes on people leaving the country too?

Your question was what degree could people get that they (i.e. the student) didn’t have to pay for, you didn’t mention degrees that were completely free so I don’t know where this equivalency aspect came from. Well, yes I do, you just didn’t like my response. Incidentally, it’s always been possible to qualify into certain professions without going down the formal degree route (e.g. accountancy) and the richest parents at my DC’s private school are the builders. It’s not all about the degree. That’s not to say that I am anti-degree but I will definitely be encouraging my DC to take the apprenticeship route, whether that be a vocational apprenticeship or a degree apprenticeship.

But many of them earn around average national wage and you previously said that such people wouldn’t have children in private school!

Well I have two boys, one in state and one in private. You are making things up - you don’t know the reasons for why I have children in different schools. There is no favourite, and the one in state school is far more likely to get into Oxbridge. I suspect that the one in private school won’t go to university at all and that’s fine, because that’s not the reason that he goes to private school.

‘There is no favourite, and the one in state school is far more likely to get into Oxbridge’

It’s okay to have favourites, some people just don’t like to admit it.
Statistically, Oxbridge currently takes around 33% of its intake from private schools - while 6% of pupils are privately educated in the U.K. so until that intake drops to below the percentage of 6% your favoured child statistically has a higher chance of Oxbridge.

Not like the good old days when private education bought an Oxbridge place…

NQT's, on average, earn £10k over national average salary.. experienced teachers on national average are being seriously under paid.

Mean average salary in 2023 was £42,210 and median average salary was £34,963. What NQT’s earn £10k more than this?

Senior management decide on salaries in the company I work for and they pay themselves a lot for spending a lot of time in meetings while the people doing the actual work get paid much much less. I'm sure that you think every body who is highly paid is worth the money but you would wouldn't you?

For somebody who earns so much more than me, I do struggle making myself clear to you. Is it you or me?

I don't disagree there is greater value-added in some professions than others. But that's completely different from pay "not being justified", and in any case the tax the government needs is raised on the pay, not whether it's "justified".

And in the relevant category of marginal private school families, you're much more likely to find doctors than hedge-fund managers. There are four NHS doctors as parents in my kids' classes alone, and three of them have separately told me (1) if it wasn't for private school hours they wouldn't be able to do their jobs (2) if it wasn't for private school fees they'd be doing reduced hours.

Again, nobody has thought this through.