I genuinely want pro-VAT people to answer these two questions

[Seenandheard]

(1) Do you realise that a private school child saves the tax payer/government thousands of pounds per year by not taking up a space in state school? Not to mention the space in the classroom/competition for places? (Do you care about this point or gloss over it in your minds?!)

(2) Do ypu realise that taxing education is illegal in the EU?

Yes or no to both points, please.

I do not want reams of uninformed angry opinions. I don't want this to turn into a multi page thread/bun fight. I just want to understand whether people realise these two points, really, truly understand them. Because it seems to me that there is a mentality of "they're getting a tax break" (WRONG) or "they're taking something away from my child" (WRONG) or "they can afford it so they can spread their wealth a bit" (I'm not going into the fact that my family spend more on taxes than Nordic countries, who have a far, far higher standard of living. We give so much, get almost nothing in return- but apparently we need to give more. More. More.)

I think my deep rooted anger here is to do with people's attitudes and uninformed opinions more than the policy itself. I need to know if people are aware of the facts.

@Humphhhh

"But before I can answer the first question can you explain in detail how the tax payer is saved thousands per year? Can you explain how much a single state school place costs? Can you explain how you have modelled children likely to return to state? What's the net gain of this tax? "

A single state education place costs £7,460 per year.

If a private school pupil transfers to a state school then either it costs the education budget an additional £7,460 or the Government doesn't bother giving the education budget more money so that it becomes more pupils but with the same budget meaning quality goes down.

There are currently 615,000 pupils in private schools in the UK compared to 10.3 million state school pupils. It's clearly impossible to say for sure how many private school pupils will leave, plus do you count pupils that would have joined a private school in year 7 but instead join a state school (ie lower enrolment numbers). But depending on the source it is estimated that there will be between 10 and 20% less pupils at private schools once VAT is introduced.

1 Yes
2 No, and what's more I don't believe it is illegal. I know that the provision of educational services is exempt from VAT in the EU but that's not the same as it being illegal to tax it.

‘No choice’ 🤣 Yeah OK. Yes, you did have a choice. You utilised that choice. If you want to see what ‘no choice’ looks like, open your eyes to the world around you.

It is not vote grabbing. Labour are a socialist party with belief of the state system working for all and benefiting all.

Because raising taxes in a cost of living crisis for 90% of the electorate is not tenable. Driving growth of economy and siphoning off excess wealth is.

From everything I've read, very few children will switch from private to state because of the addition of VAT. I'm.against private education in principle and if there is some transfer I think that can only be a good thing.

I voted remain, but have accepted that, unfortunately, we have left the EU. I'm aware that it's illegal to charge VAT for education in the EU but sadly we are no longer in the EU.

@Didimum they could move to ban faith schools and grammar schools. And penalise those who inflate house prices near outstanding state schools.

They won't do any of those things. I wonder why?

*1) Do you realise that a private school child saves the tax payer/government thousands of pounds per year by not taking up a space in state school? Not to mention the space in the classroom/competition for places? (Do you care about this point or gloss over it in your minds?!)

(2) Do ypu realise that taxing education is illegal in the EU?*

Don't care and don't care. We aren't in the EU anymore, and laws can be changed. You're paying for a luxury service, you should be paying tax on it.

"Because raising taxes in a cost of living crisis for 90% of the electorate is not tenable. Driving growth of economy and siphoning off excess wealth is."

Wealth isn't neatly compartmentalised into private school parents and state school parents. There are many millionaires sending their children to state schools who are not being asked to contribute.

@Shaketherombooga

"Christ on a bike, stop whining about fees! It’s so f-ing dull now."

The reason why the "whining" continues is that this is not a tax that raises money from the rich to give to the poor. Indeed it is questionable whether the tax will actually raise more money than it costs to implement.

It is that many posters would still support it even if it cost the taxpayer money simply because they view it as unfair that wealthy people can give an advantage to their children and that this is unfair.

Whether you like it or not wealthy parents can and will always give their children advantages such as a secure home, clubs and activities, holidays, better quality food, transport, etc etc.

The perception amongst parents of private school pupils is that the motivation is to punish the wealthy for their success. This is a dangerous change both because it is divisive and that the top 1% of top income earners pay 30% of all income tax receipts or 0.3% of top income earners (100k people) pay 25% of all income tax revenue.

Now like all parents this wealthy 1 or 0.3 % get very protective over their children and despite what the left believe, economically it is really not a smart idea to piss off those 100k top tax payers.

Whether you like it or not wealthy parents can and will always give their children advantages such as a secure home, clubs and activities, holidays, better quality food, transport, etc etc.

Nobody's saying they can't or shouldn't do that. They're just saying they should be paying tax on it.

The more I think about this policy the more I realise what a genius move by Labour it really is. Ideologically motivated, poorly thought through and being lapped up by everyone when in reality it will probably drive turgidly slow (if any) improvement.

You've got to hand it to them.

Because they don’t cause such distinct social segregation.

P.S I also strongly oppose grammar and faith schools. In fact I moved areas just to get away from a grammar school system that was severely effecting the local non-grammar state schools.

The parents aren’t being taxed. The schools are being taxed.

@Didimum untrue. Schools are passing on VAT to the end user, the parent. Schools are not being taxed.

@Standupcitizen

"Nobody's saying they can't or shouldn't do that. They're just saying they should be paying tax on"

Now food is zero rated however the wealthy can afford a better balanced (but more expensive) diet - fresh veg and fruit, fresh fish and meat that the poorer cannot.

Should we introduce VAT on the better balanced but more expensive food because it's unfair?

Tax on tomatoes. 🍅 😂. Blimmin ‘eck. Getting a bit desperate now.

Yes I know those things and no it doesn't change how I feel about vat on private schools. They are businesses and should be run as such.

@Didimum I would strongly contest your assertion that grammar schools don't cause social segregation. It's pretty well discussed and has been for years.

Not all private schools are like Eton you know? There are many small indies operating in the heart of communities where the children socialise with those from local state schools.

1. Yes but I don't care. I would happily see all private schools be removed completely. All children should have access to the same standard of education and I welcome the additional funding to state schools.
2. No, but I don't care about this either. We're not in the EU so what difference does it make?

That’s the school’s decision.

Yep vat unfairly penalises the poorer members of society

@jannier

"Yep vat unfairly penalises the poorer members of society"

I agree and would be all in favour of abolishing VAT. The problem that it raises £170 billion in tax revenue so what do you replace it with?

@Decompressing2

How are private schools a luxury but a university education is not?

Higher Education is definitely a luxury that’s still an unaffordable dream for many bright state school educated children from poorer families.

Despite all the additional funding thrown at widening participation in the last 20 years, very little has been achieved in terms of increasing the opportunities for disadvantaged children to attend a good University. Even if their fees are paid in full, how many families can afford the spiralling costs of accommodation in many of the University cities?

It must be a wonderful view from up there in your Ivory tower, so far removed from the rest of normal society!

Yep and I still don’t give a shit. People are struggling to put food on the table including a good friend of mine who is disabled so I can’t feel sorry for people who now have to pay a bit more to send their kids to private school.

Once more if I had the money I would not be sending my kids to private school.