More than private school fees will be affected by VAT

[MyNameIsFine]

Don't actually know if I'm being unreasonable here, interested to know whether this is true or not. Will the VAT on education also affect holiday clubs and afterschool clubs?

Of course 🙄
So why is ice cream taxed but frozen yoghurt isn't?

@MyNameIsFine

More people aren't up in arms about because they rightly view private education as a luxury, and the lack of VAT as a tax break for the best off in the country.

@twistyizzy You've made that spurious point about toilet roll and caviar before but that is just a strange quirk of the system. VAT is a consumption tax which, exemption from which is often put down to the fact that the particular purchase is a necessity or a staple.

Private education should lose its exemption.

Why the eye roll?
Toilet roll was a luxury . Us children had to sit and cut squares of newspapers to hand on string to go in the outside toilet. Everyone we knew did the same
Even school didn't have soft toilet roll. It was paper

I’m not sure that any sensible person would argue that, today, toilet roll is a luxury. Interestingly though, caviar is free from VAT. VAT is not a luxury tax. In any case, a decent education should not be seen as a luxury.

Except like you say VAT is complex and you end up with a tangled mess which means you get time spent in court over Jaffa cakes.
Labour can't even agree on the impact of their policy, let alone write coherent VAT rules.

Books are zero rated, audiobooks are VATable.

VAT does have an internal logic and consistency (with wobbly bits around the edges and grey areas and differing interpretations). But it's based on a set of values, and if you don't agree with those values it's going to seem unfair. It's essentially a tax on consumption and it's inherently regressive. It probably needs either scrapping or massively overhauling, but that would be very hard to achieve.

Every child is entitled to a good education. If a parent wants to pay for a better education than every other child gets, that's a luxury for the privileged few.
I was talking to a head teacher of an outstanding school yesterday who thinks its the best thing that can happen to education in this country.

Except every child in a private schools saves the state 7K per year and collectively £4 billion per year.
So every child that goes from private to state will cost the taxpayer money plus they will lose the VAT for that place.
If it so good then why are the collective Heads of grammar schools against the policy?

It would be better to focus on the inequality that currently exists in state schools:

• parents who can afford to pay for tutors
• parents who can afford to move house to good catchment areas
• state schools that offer Latin and a much wider range of extra curricular activities than other state schools

There are plenty of wealthy parents in the state sector, if they all made voluntary income tax contributions to the schools then this would bring in more money than VAT.

Our fees will rise by circa £6 k . I do consider that a huge rise. Our combined family income is £96-ish K before tax. We have a mortgage like many people etc. With mortgage, fees, cost of living etc we don't have alot of wriggle room in our budgets. We prioritised private school because DS has a range of SEN and extreme anxiety and the school we chose has terrific pastoral care. But we'd have to find another £500 a month on top of what we currently pay.

I'm honestly not sure how we will be able to manage it, but we really need to keep him in the school for another 4 years if we possibly can. We originally downsized so we could have a smaller mortgage and free up some money for fees.

I was talking to a head teacher of an outstanding school yesterday who thinks its the best thing that can happen to education in this country

Sure. Why? How? What is it that a headteacher of an outstanding school thinks is going to happen as a direct result of this policy?

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/value-added-tax-vat-at-50/

If you are interested in the purpose of VAT, this article is very readable.

Sorry, AlwaysCloudy. That sounds like it's going to be very difficult for you.

36% think I'm not being unreasonable. I'm a bit surprised by that, actually! I thought my original post was a bit far out!

A bit late as I think most people have moved on from the thread, but this link explains what is included in the 'education' that is exempt from VAT. Something I hadn't thought of was English as a Second Language courses. These are often taught by private companies, and, according to this are exempt from VAT. Despite my original post, I really don't think they're going to start charging holiday clubs or aftercare, but English as a Second Language - they might put VAT on that.

Ooops!
Link: https://www.marcusward.co/vat-education-what-precisely-is-exempt/

" but English as a Second Language - they might put VAT on that."

Unlikely as it's not legally compulsory education, that will be ( or something like that) will be the caveat.

If anyone does care about the vat issue, read more about it and sign here :

https://www.change.org/p/stop-labour-from-adding-20-vat-to-private-school-fees-and-forcing-kids-to-change-schools/u/32672954?cs_tk=An7Iy1Sp4okMBb7UcWYAAXicyyvNyQEABF8BvE7huEk9vVrX8Yg0wNRkMX8%3D&utm_campaign=d2ae502bce934219954a5d593e74cfe7&utm_content=initial_v0_7_1&utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update&utm_term=cs

A petition is irrelevant. If they are elected with it in their manifesto they have a mandate to do it. It means a majority of people either agree with it or don’t care about it.

You can use that argument for Brexit. The Conservatives were elected on a manifesto promising a referendum. It hasn’t stopped people having strong opinions on it.

I didn’t say opinions were irrelevant. I said a petition was. And, yes, it was in the Tory manifesto and it happened. You seem to be accidentally agreeing with me.

And having a strong opinion that leaving the EU was monumentally stupid made absolutely no difference. The vote said leave and we left.

Another appeal to emotion, this is your hill to die on afte children in poverty, children with SEN, children in state schools, children in care, children in all sorts of circumstances have been made significantly worse off over the last 14 years?

it’s pretty low to suggest that it’s ok for children who’s parents have more money than average somehow deserve to be pulled from their schools with all the upheaval and upset that causes. Children with rich parents can also be carers, have disabilities, witness domestic abuse, experience drug abuse and alcoholism in their household, see grandparents ebb away with dementia, have a parent who dies suddenly and violently etc etc It’s even lower to ignore the needs of the very many children in private who were mercilessly bullied in the state sector and who’s quirkiness and difference is accepted in private. Not to mention the children with SEN getting the support they need which will disappear in state. There are very many middle class families with yes, above average earnings but who don’t meet any criteria to be described as ‘rich’ who will need to remove their children as a result of this policy - many who are parents of those quirky and SEN children who found acceptance and support in the independent sector.

I could support it if it were phased in or if there were very real evidence that it would be spent on the state sector in a way that will bring about real improvements. But that cannot happen until any Government starts to stem the ebb of teachers out of the system, improves pay, attracts quality graduates in all subjects and re-professionalises the job of the teacher.

I will vote Labour but I have already told my candidate that I disagree with this policy for all these reasons. A country gleeful at punishing kids for having wealthier parents is not the kind of wealth redistribution we need.

@notbelieved

"It’s pretty low to suggest that it’s ok for children who’s parents have more money than average somehow deserve to be pulled from their schools with all the upheaval and upset that causes"

This isn't what was suggested, what was suggested.

The rest of your paragraph, yet again, is just appealing to emotion, and doesn't mean that this tax shouldn't be implemented.

This statement: " here are very many middle class families with yes, above average earnings but who don’t meet any criteria to be described as ‘rich’ who will need to remove their children as a result of this policy" There are going to be a few, but there really aren't that many families, statistically, privately educating their children who our outside the top income decile.

"But that cannot happen until any Government starts to stem the ebb of teachers out of the system, improves pay, attracts quality graduates in all subjects and re-professionalises the job of the teacher."

Hmm, if only we could find a way to increase funding into the state sector eh?

Hmm, if only we could find a way to increase funding into the state sector eh?

Except there has been credible calculations done which suggest this won't be the case. That, and just throwing money at the state sector isn't actually going to improve anything if the rest of what is going on in teaching isn't tackled at the same time.

'Appealing to emotion'. Sure. Because there is a lot at stake for some families that can't be managed by the fact that they have money.

"Except there has been credible calculations done which suggest this won't be the case. "

And there have been critiques of those calculations, and others done that show it will.

" That, and just throwing money at the state sector isn't actually going to improve anything if the rest of what is going on in teaching isn't tackled at the same time."

Most of what is going on in teaching could be solved by bigger budgets, more teachers/TAs, more PPA time, more resources to use.