To think good school places will be even harder to find next year because of the VAT on school fees

[Nesca1]

We are are looking at secondary schools for DS. We have our eye on a decent school bang in the middle of a solid middle class area . The school is always over subscribed; this year we would have gotten a place but last year we would have missed out because of how far we are from the school.
Usually, the school offers places to children living 1600m away, last year it was 1400m due to a large number of sibling applications.

Due to the whole VAT issue, i think more parents from the local area are going to be sending their kids to this school, rather than sending them to private schools.

Is this a reasonable assumption? I don't think parents will wait for the policy to be enacted, but they will move their year 6 children into this school.

School roles are falling. State schools would welcome an influx of new pupils.
But this is all hyperbole. All that will happen is some rich people will have to pay more as they no longer get the vat tax break.
Oh noes!!

I'll definitely come back and tell you you were right if this happens.

How can we avoid this? Vote Tory?

“Yep. That is definitely going to happen. Vote Conservative- it's the only hope.” How funny @CurlewKate

The only party that actually cares about Education is Lib Dem.
Labour are awful for Education and so are the Tories.
Vote Lib Dem to balance the madness out.

And whilst they all thought it was just ex Tories defecting, it will be plenty of ex-Labour as well.

From an anti Iraq, anti Brexit, anti Rwanda poster. And most definitely anti this shite VAT policy as well.

I think people need to take a step back here and consider the bigger picture.

It is all well and good people arguing the likely magnitude of detrimental factors that may or may not transpire however this loses sight of the fact any detriment should only be considered against benefits of the policy otherwise none can be justified.

The reality is this policy will likely result in no benefit to the Treasury and could likely result in a loss due to behavioral changes which have so far been ignored in any impact assessment. These include amended working practices by parents, reduced lifetime tax receipts etc.

That leaves us with a policy that is economically illiterate. The motivation of opponents is therefore extremely questionable.

It is a sad indictment on society that many appear to revel in harming others to bring them nearer to their own circumstances rather than improving their own lot.

I am a state school parent and it's enough to tip me away from labour. I live in an area of london with lots of private schools and "amazing comprehensive". We need to live near the station so are in the outer part of where kids are admitted from so an extra couple of children could make the difference for my DD, it's a risk i can't take unfortunately.

In theory i would love no private schools and all amazing state schools but in practise i need to work out what best benefits my DC. I don't think i'll vote conservative either fwiw

Conservatives leaving state schools in such a mess that ceilings fall in. State schools not having enough teachers. Conservatives destroying NHS dentistry and now doing the same to GP and hospital care. NHS waiting lists the longest in recorded history. The number of street homeless people increasing in every city and many towns. Open corruption by the Conservative government.

Labour - we are going to abolish a tax advantage given to private schools.

Oh no how terrible I am going to vote Conservative because of this. Well if that is what makes you Conservative I think you are immoral.

The thing is Starmer can still get out of this if he wants to.

The intention is to make the richer private schools with genuinely rich parent groups contribute more to state education. It surely cannot be to harm smaller private schools full of SEN children.

If that is the intention then do a report and work with the Charities Commission on holding expensive private schools to account by quantifying in their accounts precisely how much they contribute to the local state education community and further afield (as lots can be done with technology). Many are already pulling their weight and making a big impact, some are not.
As for private Schools that are genuinely big businesses and not charities, I am sure some education expert can come up with a similar model.

But messing with the concept of VAT on Education is utter madness.

@Charlie2121 ’economically illiterate’ is exactly the right term. What’s concerning me is that Labour are riding on emotive issues to win votes rather than looking at worthwhile policies. Like Brexit the majority of people do not have real background to how this could back fire massively. We will all end up in a worse position as a result.

Those who decide not to vote Labour won’t necessarily be voting Conservative.

It’s a shame that, despite all the problems you highlight, the Labour Party seem to focussing their policies on a small proportion of society (private schools and non doms) rather than actually suggesting meaningful policies which might actually make a difference to the majority of the population. Attacking private schools and non doms is a lazy, populist move.

@NoisySnail its not a tax advantage, as a policy it’s detrimental to both sectors. I just don’t know how to hammer this home to people.

@NoisySnail “Labour - we are going to abolish a tax advantage given to private schools.”

They are just as bad because they are lying to us. This policy won’t make any actual money. Will just stress out some more families and children right after the Covid period, biggest mess in children’s education in 70 years. What a fantastic plan!

Well precisely, most people I know are voting Lib Dem

If you think this is the biggest mess in children's education in 70 years then you have totally ignored what the Conservative party has done to state schools.

This thread and many like it show that rich people will hang onto their tax advantages for dear life.

The imposition of VAT is not going to make a DC grammar material if they inherently are not. The reality is that this topic is one that really only affects a small very percentage of the population. They are aggrieved and trying to get buy-in from the masses with conjecture about it having much more significant overall impact than it will. @StarlingsForever

Yes, it is hilarious including the assertion that their children will take all the grammar school places because they are so much more clever and the assumption that they will be quickly be able to buy a house near a good state school and switch their child over as if the oversubscribed state school won't have a huge waiting list. @wombat15

Just because it's a minority doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

Nobody said "children will take all the grammar school places". What everybody has said is that competition for those places will become more intense, which is uncontroversial and is already happening. Just ask a tutor. The result - unless grammar schools expand, some kid or other gets nudged out and doesn't make it. You're right we can't assume private school children are "so much more clever" and will take all the places automatically, but there's a longstanding complaint about grammar schools that the 11+ is dominated by expensive tutoring. If that's even partly true you should assume grammar schools become even more difficult for the less wealthy.

Nobody said, either, that it's easy to get into an oversubscribed state school. What we've repeatedly said is families that can't easily move and don't have an reasonable state school vacancy might stick it out and pay VAT to the next point-of-entry, and THEN will (following the same theme) join an intensified competition for the oversubscribed school, on an equal basis as everyone else...and again, some kid or other gets nudged out. In this case you should simply assume the wealthier families "win".

Either way you're left with the economic fundamentals. The country has fewer children getting an education of their parents' choice and more children (typically, the less-wealthy) being forced into less-preferred settings. You also have less expenditure in a sector of the economy that's highly tax-generative, combined with a reduced incentive for higher earners to earn. And you have a bunch of redundant teachers (who can't be assumed to match location, motivation and skillset for state school hiring).

So those are the nuances. I appreciate your urge to crow because you think you're "getting one over" the beastly rich, but actually it would be far-sighted and public spirited to join the opposition to this dimwitted tax.

“If you think this is the biggest mess in children's education in 70 years then you have totally ignored what the Conservative party has done to state schools.”

I was referring to the Covid period being the biggest mess in 70 years!

It's not much of a tax advantage to be paying for education via your taxes without actually using it... then paying mega bucks for education on top of it.

Why?

The state provides an education. It is your choice whether to pay more for a private education. That choice should not carry a tax advantage.
The state provides buses. I drive a car. I do not expect the state to give me a tax advantage because I drive a car instead of using a bus.

You all come across as grifters.

The Taxpayers alliance has this article

https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/counting_the_costs_of_labour_s_private_school_vat_plans

People using the private sector are funding their own children’s education. There are very wealthy people using the state system at a cost of thousands of pounds a year to the taxpayer. Not everyone at private school is wealthy, but let’s attack those families who are actually saving the state money. It’s non sensical.

Family 1. Not particularly wealthy, scrimps and saves. Spends £200k on private education over 14 years, costing the taxpayer £0 for their child’s education.

Family 2. Extremely wealthy. Uses the state system at the cost to the taxpayer of around £8k a year (£112k over the course of primary and secondary). They save the £200k not being spent on school fees and give it to their child at 18.

How anyone thinks that family 1 is the one which should be paying yet more tax is a mystery to me.

Ah the Taxpayers Alliance. That unbiased source of information.
Another source. Also biased but with better evidence for its claims.

https://labourlist.org/2023/04/myths-are-rife-over-labours-private-school-tax-heres-why-theyre-wrong/

https://inews.co.uk/news/labour-private-school-tax-wealthy-poorer-children-grammars-2875633

@Another76543 anyone can use state provision, it is not means tested. Billionaires can send their children to a state school, and a few do.
But if you want to opt out of this provision then you have to pay the real cost. There is no justification for being given a tax advantage.

@Another76543 Total hyperbole.

If you want to take your children out of private school and send them to a state school, that is your choice.

There is no “tax advantage”. In fact as things currently stand, private schools are already penalised through the VAT system as they can’t reclaim input VAT on goods and service they buy. State schools can.

Do you also think that buying a loaf of bread from the supermarket confers a tax advantage? What about cake, books etc? Does buying those give a tax advantage? Private healthcare? Nurseries? Care homes? Do all of those things confer a “tax advantage”? We will be in a position where education is taxable and cake is not.