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.

Exactly. If yiu can’t afford it OP, then you’ll need to make plans. I understand it’s a worry

We all thought that when top up fees were brought in ten or so years ago that universities would charge different fees - but they all went straight for the £9k probably because they were being paid for by loans and as most universities in UK are public run then the vat will go straight back to government.
The private universities here charge more than £9k - some thrive (Norland nannies and the law schools) and are part covered by student loans

Universities don't just teach. Most academics also do research and are not on holiday when the students are not there.

It depends on the course. A vocational one will teach skills for a specific profession and contact time is high. If your workplace employs students from a variety of non vocational courses then training for the skills is the employers job.

I'm well aware of what academic "do". As I have family who are academics and I have worked with them from time to time.

We had a joint research project. They billed at a higher rate than the rest of the partners, then as it was only 50% funded they expected the other commercial partners to make up the difference. They were late or just didn't do the work. Students lost or destroyed the samples that industrial partners supplied.

... Yes they research.. principaly how much Starbucks they can consume and how to look busy while doing very little

I'm sure your family speak highly of you too. Having a couple of family members who are academics and don't work hard (in your opinion) doesn't mean you know all about universities and academics in all disciplines. I am sure there are people in your industry who are incompetent and/or take the piss and get away with it but it doesn't mean everyone in that industry is like that.

Hmm. The original comment was answered by the OP and others I think, at the time it was posted. I haven’t got the will to go back and copy it.

However it is about the principle of VAT on education. Obviously private schools and universities are different 🙄 however - they are both sources of education.

Therefore it is not beyond the realms of reality that once one area of education is seen as ‘VATable’, other areas of education are susceptible to that legal precedence (should it in fact be ‘legal’).

It is a shame more people don’t actually see the potential consequences of this Labour folly, blinded as they are by who knows what.

People don't "see" the potential consequence for universities because there is none as explained above. You might think that universities should be penalised but that doesn't mean it will happen. Even if VAT is charged on student fees the net cost to students and income to universities can be the same.

But meanwhile the tax payer pays more?

Why would the tax payer need to pay more? The government could just give back the money gained from VAT.🙄

👀 that’s not going to happen

What is not going to happen is universities being charged VAT on fees. It would be totally pointless as universities already receive a certain amount of government funding. The funding could be easily increased if necessary though and the vat used to fund it.

We all know that VAT isn't going to be added to university fees. This is pure scaremongering designed to get people the side of those campaigning against VAT on private school fees. It's a cynical ploy to create fear about something that simply 9am going to happen.

Yes, it looks a bit desperate and pathetic.

Off-topic, but as an economist I can't resist.

The same Liz Truss that was PM for about five minutes? She's been "out" for nearly ten times as long as she was "in" and she doesn't set monetary policy, the BoE does. Inflation was raging ten months before she was PM due to monetary conditions set by BoE ten years before.

Interest rates continued higher and peaked after her policies, which were announced but never enacted, were long gone.

The actual "crisis" was in liability-driven investments, which the BoE regulated and evidently didn't understand. The LDI crisis was some years in the making and would have happened anyway.

If she'd been less naive, and spent six months preparing her ground, the crisis you're referring to would have been pinned, correctly, at the BoE door.

Universities sit in a grey area of private but with some public funding.
Technically, however, the Government view them as Private.

Bury your head in the sand then…

I'm guessing that OP has already been told multiple times that she is comparing apples and oranges here. The legal status of universities is also a bit irrelevant because it is how tuition fees are funded that is important here. Most students pay tuition via student loans - a debt that is born by the government either until it is paid off over a long time or written off if the student never ears enough to fully pay back. Increasing that debt on taxpayers by 20% simply to appease a few grumpy parents who are choosing to not use a state provided education system and instead pay for them luxury of private education by creating a false equivalence is something even the current crop of Tory idiots wouldn't suggest. Treasury would laugh any minister suggesting it out of the door.

The backlash was inevitable against a policy that simply ensures private education is treated as the luxury discretionary spending that it is. People will lie, exaggerate, conflate, mislead and downright bullshit about this to try and get out of paying the tax they should be paying for luxury items.

Totally agree.

I'm guessing you've not studied economics.

Nobody actually wants to see universities taxed. We want education not to be taxed, as in every other country in the world.

The equivalence is false but in the opposite way you suggest. Both are merit goods - there's public and private benefit in education. For that reason I definitely don't think we should tax university. Both independent schools and universities mainly serve children from more affluent families.

But (1) university isn't compulsory (2) university is, unlike independent school, heavily-subsidised already (3) there's no "free" provider of university, so paying for this or that university doesn't save the taxpayer £8-12k per child. If you choose to omit those facts, don't be accusing others of BS.

‘ a debt that is born by the government’

You mean the tax payer. Paying for degrees that students never pay off. What a ludicrous situation. Then we have a situation whereby the more you earn the more pointless it is as a significant proportion is taxed and the tax free allowance is removed. Then we have the situation where people are using tax payers money to claim benefits instead of actually working - because it’s more beneficial to do so (and why wouldn’t they).

The UK is a joke - anyone remotely financially successful, is penalised.

The situation and overall attitude has to change.
The country can’t afford it, hence the absolute mess our services are in.

Quite

@wombat15

They have best part of 2.5 months off including bank holidays.

When they are there then it seems that the university is yes minister "compassionate society" episode.