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.

Only decent thing Farage has ever done in his life. Must remember to send him an Xmas card.

I agree it is really a poor show that Labour set up the voting system and rearranged constituency boundaries, tried to disenfranchise young voters by insisting on very particular forms of voter ID without telling anyone and then won an election on that basis.

It makes me laugh so much every time I remember that.

I did not realise those things (is point 1 even true when taking into account, e.g., charitable status of private schools?), but I don't really care. Sorry.

Lovely assumption that Reform voters would have automatically voted Tory - in fact YouGov discovered that a sizeable amount of Reform voters wouldn't have voted at all if Reform hadn't stood.

"Reform UK are standing candidates in nearly all constituencies, and the data shows that even if they were to stand down just 36% of their voters say they would switch to the Conservatives. Instead, 6% would vote Labour, the same proportion would go Lib Dem, 4% would switch to the Greens, and 12% to another party. Fully a quarter (26%) simply would not vote at this election in a scenario where Reform UK were not fielding a candidate for their seat."

yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49762-general-election-2024-reform-uk-voters-are-not-benign-toward-the-tories-they-are-belligerent

‘The reason why the "whining" continues is that this is not a tax that raises money from the rich to give to the poor. ’

No, nor should it be. Taxes are supposed to benefit all of us with decent public services.

Taking away this particular tax break for businesses that cater to the wealthy is long overdue. As is the removal of ‘charity ‘ status from these businesses that allows them more tax breaks.

@Curryle3af

I don't think you've read the article. It says

"Legislation aimed at abolishing or impairing the existence of such schools (eg by imposing VAT or removing Charitable Status) would therefore most probably be unlawful and incompatible with the Convention."

And I don't think your DH being an economist is relevant unless he has a hotline to Rachel Reeves. There isn't enough information about this policy for anyone to understand fully all the implications right now. The schools themselves don't all have their ducks in a row.

Yet you’re cool with everyone anti-VAT on this thread playing armchair economics clearly. Some of us actually have an understanding at greater depth.

Private schools have continued to raise their fees in the last 30 years WAY out of line with inflation and any other consumer good rise. They were up 550% 10 years ago, with average consumer goods only up by 200%. I do not know the latest % raise, but you can bet it’s higher still. A report from the Good Schools guide reported that the majority of this money (70%) was put towards sporting and music facilities – not core education, not scholarships, not teacher salaries – only facilities that by their own admission would attract the super wealthy and better their competition with other schools.

They are completely in control of what their fees are and therefore what the VAT bill is.

I think it is hilarious that so many people are arguing this is about envy and people on the dole 😅

I am a high earner. If I wanted to send my child private, I probably could. I think it is a total waste of money and I am against it on principle.

I did.

How would VAT impair the “existence” of private education? It will still be there.

He also used the word “probably”

And the poster below has also outlined the actual reality.

“Dan Neidle's thread (linked below) debunks the theory that the ECHR will find against the government. But even if it did the ECHR cannot overrule acts of Parliament.

Parliament is sovereign (as it always has been).

As for concern about divergence from EU regulation - their key concerns will be trade related.”

It’s much simpler for them if they just assume we are ‘thick’.

Mmm. It does seem to be BEYOND some people to understand that there are many MANY of us who don’t consider sending our children to elitist schools, where everyone thinks the same, talks the same, looks the same, is from the same background, where outdated ideas about ‘class’ still exist - is not the best way to educated our children.

It’s not envy. We could afford to send our kids to the local private’s schools, even the stupidly overpriced one - but I look at the children they produce and the parents who send their kids there, and quite honestly want nothing to do with them.

And your reaction proves the concept of class and that it still exists in the society. As such, it cannnot be called “outdated”

my career path has put me in a position where I work with many people who can afford private education but have decided against it.
Some do - usually the ones who went to private schools themselves, the majority who don’t are overwhelming from a WC background like myself and haven’t even considered it.
It does seem to still be a very ‘class’ thing in England still.

@NotAlexa well, if you are going to make sweeping statements, two can play at that game. The wealthy don't like the tax because they can't avoid it. There's no way to move your money around to get out of it. The offshore account isn't going to help them out, here.
That's the fundamental problem with VAT. There isn't a convenient, legal way to avoid it. You can EVADE it, possibly, but that's not so easy to do, since we aren't talking about a £300 plumbing job the tradesman wants to do cash in hand.
Tax AVOIDANCE is the exploitation of a legal loophole practiced by those who have enough money to make certain investments or open accounts offshore. EVASION is illegal, and is, of course, the method of getting round taxation that is available to the majority - things like cash in hand work, etc.
The wealthy get rather upset when faced with a tax they can't AVOID, they can only EVADE.
Welcome to the world of the majority of us who pay our taxes (grumbling a bit, but hey ho) on most stuff we buy, the services we use, the money we earn and have no means of getting away from it without breaking the law.

@Curryle3af

The point is that there is a legal debate. It's not a clear situation. Some schools will be forced to close due to falling pupil numbers. Imposing a 20% tax charge will have an impact on the existence of some schools. You said you could find nothing about the ECHR and VAT on school fees. I linked an article setting out one side of the argument. It's the opinion of a KC with expertise in human rights law.

ECHR can't override Parliament.

I’m not from this country - so your ‘class’ system as is seems utterly bizarre to me. It’s not something I ever really have been a part of although I have been told that as I grew up relatively poor and my parents had manual jobs - I am Working Class or Blue collar if you prefer.
I would say I just had a normal upbringing, in a low income family, went to normal schools.

@Shaketherombooga

"It’s not envy. We could afford to send our kids to the local private’s schools, even the stupidly overpriced one - but I look at the children they produce and the parents who send their kids there, and quite honestly want nothing to do with them."

For someone apparently so happy with their decision not to use the private system, you appear to have a lot of anger and bitterness towards those that do. Those parents and children are not affecting you or your decision. Why are you so keen to penalise them? Perhaps it makes more sense for those like you, with apparently tens of thousands of pounds a year spare, to contribute more financially to the state system which you use and which you are happy with.

I said I couldn’t see anything where it contravenes EHCR. I still don’t see anything.

Private schools put up their fees all the time. Is this not allowed?They don’t need to pass on the cost to parents. The existence of the sector will continue.

It’s not really a legal debate as the EHCR can’t over rule acts of parliament.

Um. You call 26% a sizeable amount, and ignore the fact that fully 36% said they'd have voted Tory? And yet you cite that pre-election poll as support for the claim it wasn't Reform that harmed the Tory vote?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2024/jul/05/eleven-charts-that-show-how-labour-won-by-a-landslide

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/06/the-true-cost-of-reform-conservative-election-result/

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-uk-election-reform-votes-surge-labour-win-conservative-loss/

Nigel Farage's Reform wins 5 seats as it eats into Tory vote

I think it's alarming so many did support Reform, given what some of their candidates came out with. Racist commentary, misogynist commentary, and a particular highlight was one telling the parent of autistic twins that autistic people are vegetables.

@Curryle3af

"Social mobility is incredibly poor in this country. "
I completely agree but the biggest driver of poor social mobility is through inheritance, mainly housing assets that have increased massively in value over the last 40 years and through wealthy people tending to marry other wealthy people.

CGT on principle residence and reducing the IHT threshold could address the inheritance issue but I'm not sure how you can legislate against who people choose to marry.

I'm very similar!

Growing up, I think I somewhat idolised UC culture and literature. (I was a strange and bookish child). It took me a while of living in this country to realise that I really can't stand posh people on the whole. It's come as a surprise! But, ugh. It would be so disappointing if my child were sucked into this mindset.

Starmer has said he has no desire to leave the ECHR. I'm not sure that he should just pick and choose the bits he likes and ignore the rest.

www.politico.eu/article/britain-keir-starmer-never-leave-european-convention-human-rights-political-community-summit/

@Curryle3af

"I said I couldn’t see anything where it contravenes EHCR. I still don’t see anything."

A KC specialising in human rights law disagrees.