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.

@Dibblydoodahdah

The statistics of the percentage of the privately educated occupying the top jobs would trump your own personal experience.

And? Does Buckingham charge fees whilst the regulated ones are free? Oh no, so that's a crap argument.

It’s not a tax advantage. It would only be an advantage if some people were paying VAT on education and others were not. That’s not the case. And I know plenty of people who went to state school and have top level finance and legal jobs etc. I a former free school meals and comprehensive educated girl myself and managed to get a high level job in a multi national company. Many companies now use blind recruitment anyway so it doesn’t matter where you go to school or university.

So 1-2-1 tutoring in maths & English to get (& maintain) your place at a selective state school is not a luxury but a class of e.g. 20 kids studying for key stage Maths & English not supported by the taxpayer is a luxury

Is it really reasonable to blame those kids (aged 5-18) studying KS maths, not the guy studying for his banking degree VAT free for causing societal division

I think Labour’s policy intention on this is stupid, self-defeating, and frankly dangerous, but not for this reason.

this is a daft take.

@titchy what are the incorrect facts? Are they not private?

@Dibblydoodahdah it is a rax advantage. You are paying less because of discounted tax on something you are paying for.
If everyone in Scotland no longer had to pay vat on adult clothes they would be getting a tax advantage that those in the rest of the UK did not have. That tax advantage remains even if some people in Scotland did not buy any adult clothes.

I can't remember all on that link, but St Mary's isn't private, nor is Marjon!

Besides, students still pay fees regardless, and get loans even for the private providers. So the distinction between the two is for the most part pretty blurry.

Where does it say that? It’s an article about online education. Tell me a country that charges sales tax on private schools. There are certainly none in the EU because it‘s contrary to VAT law. In Australia and NZ private schools are actually subsidized by the State, there’s no sales tax in the U.S. in private schools….tell me which country we are following.

That’s a silly argument

It would only be an advantage if some people were paying VAT on education and others weren’t, like the example with clothes that you have given above. If it’s introduced on private school fees but private tuition remains VAT free, those using private tuition will have a tax advantage in the future. At the moment no one has an advantage because no one is paying. In fact it’s State schools that have an advantage regarding VAT at the moment as they can reclaim it but private schools can’t.

Among many other things, at Stowe School they have 27 tennis courts and an equestrian centre. Compared to an hour a week with a local tutor, yes this is a luxury.

I think your statement is absolutely bonkers. Private schools and universities are not comparable. You can quote Chomsky all you want. I do completely agree with private schools having their charitable status removed. It's an educational advantage given to those who can afford it.

I do however think the well being of children is paramount and children already in these schools whose parents can just about afford it shouldn't have to face being pulled out and having their education disrupted. I think the vat increase shouldn't apply to children already in private settings and should be introduced for new applicants.

Private schools are not having their charitable status removed.

We’ve used a combination of private and state.
the main issue with the state schools is not the facilities or the opportunities (you can replicate that) it’s the teaching, the lack of discipline and the lack of ownership from the leadership teams to sort out any problems.
you cannot sack poor teachers in the state sector.

we need to pay teachers more, but they need to accept that they need to improve their performance. DD and DS2 go to private schools and the teaching, engagement of teachers - they all run after school clubs and teach better.

we couldn’t move DS1 - (state grammar only tutored by me easily passed.) but the school really let him down and we have a tutor for every subject in sixth form and it is significantly better than the comp down the road where they have massive behavioural problems.

I think Stowe school has a significant endowment which along with fee income will fund a number of bursaries.
The much maligned Eton funds 100 scholars completely free pa.
Collectively these schools fund approximately 167k kids education (40k entirely free) through a combined charitable education spend of 930m pa.
I have no doubt they also give free (,or peppercorn) rates to schools in the community- my church school kid has been given access to two private school facilities for swimming & theatre.
....and remember if these tennis courts & equestrian centres or any other capital investment were built in the last 10 years they would be able to claim back 20% of all these costs should they be required to charge VAT on fees I.e. a huge windfall for these schools & much less for the treasury

I'm older than most here and my children are now in their 30s. Maybe I am cynical, but this is the result of a lifetime of listening to politicians coming out with soundbites designed to get votes and then utterly failing to deliver.

It's often been said, but it's still true: if state schools were well funded and offered small class sizes, top notch facilities, wide range of extracurricular opportunities, broad and balanced curriculum teaching the arts, humanities, sciences and modern languages to a really good standard, excellent vocational teaching , effective support for children with additional needs, good discipline, wraparound care and holiday schemes - why would most people bother paying for private?

If Labour really wanted to put an end to most private schools, they should have the courage of their convictions and pump money into state schools, raised by putting up taxes.

As things stand, in many state schools a target-driven culture means children are pushed towards easier subjects and away from the more rigorous ones like languages. Children are not being taught by graduates in the relevant subjects. SEND support is inadequate. If these schools have to cope with an influx of children who've been priced out of independent schools, where's the extra money going to come from to pay for them? Is it going to result in standards going up or down?

:) Do you really understand what I was saying? I’m not sure so here we are again:
Most people seem to have missed the point. Obviously universities and secondary schools are not the same. However as the one poster who understood my post said:

‘That's why the question in the OP comes about because private schools and universities are both charging a fee for education so if we start to say we put VAT on education the same principle could apply to universitites. If you look at the VAT rules you'll see that schools and universities are treated in the same way in the same bit of the rules (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-on-education-and-vocational-training-notice-70130#section3 - para 3.1). Of course it's perfectly possible to remove the exemption for schools/secondary education but not universities/tertiary education so it's not inevitable that VAT would go on both at all. But once you establish the principle it's OK you can see the argument could go that way in the future’.

Is it clearer now?

PS. I agree with the sentiment about children being the priority whatever case.

According to MN children in private schools get pulled out all the time when a change of circumstance means their parents can no longer afford it.
It is not the job of the state to subsidy well off people who commit spending up to the absolute limit of their income.

Universities are not classified as charities whereas private schools can be because they were providing the poor with education before state started funding education. Private schools are now not benefiting the poor as the bursaries are only available for tiny numbers

Can you explain how the state is subsidising these people? At present the state is not charging VAT on private school fees. The state is not giving the private schools any money. That's what subsidies normally mean, surely?

Is the state subsidising publishers and people who buy books because VAT isn't charged on books?

The state is currently subsidising by giving the school a tax break. Tax breaks are a subsidy.

And yes the state does subsidise books in that way.

Universities also offer wider benefits to the population such as conducting research, growing our economy through boosting jobs in certain sectors where the UK is pioneering techniques or systems. Not sure you could say the same about private schools.