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.

@TeenagersAngst Fair banding is a form of assessment that ensures schools have roughly equal numbers of children in all ability ranges.

Aladdinzane

@aladdinzane

Sorry, not sure I'm clear here on what you're saying. Are you saying that if in a years' time after the VAT on fees policy has been introduced, and there were no discernible improvements in state schools, this wouldn't bother you?

Ah ok. Under that system, how is ability measured? From tests like SATs?

It's alsow one of the things that has massively depressed salaries for the average graduate job and resulted to a downward trend (in real terms) for all but the brightest grads who go into finance, law or medicine. So, the opposite of what they said would happen...

I don't want to go into the issue of private school's charitable endeavours. But they are-variable to say the least!

‘also think the charitable status thing is an absolute red herring to this conversation’

It’s a complete disgrace. Unless a school is proving 90% +’places completely free to pupils, they shouldn’t even have a sniff at charity status.

Independent studies have shown that the amount of ‘charity’ that the majority provide is negligible and that the majority of bursaries go to families who can afford the fees.
St Paul’s for example starts financial aid for families whose income is below £120k.
Helping out a family on £119 k - is hardly a charitable act.

@TeenagersAngst "
Ah ok. Under that system, how is ability measured? From tests like SATs?"

Cognitive ability tests, rather than knowledge based like SATs in the very few schools the use the system,I think. But in My Brave New World, I would commission experts to find the best way of doing it.

Also quoting myself

• how exactly is this money going to improve state schools, how much will each school get, how will it spent and how will it be measured?

It's absolutely ridiculous that this thread is 99% about the morals of whether private school parents should or shouldn't pay VAT, rich vs poor, wealth divide, blah blah blah. Surely it should be 99% on whether this money will make a meaningful difference, and why all the billions already spent on education haven't improved it for many, why this magic money from private school parents magically will?

So you think that state schools have plenty of money at the moment and therefore an increase in funds won't make a difference?

What are the c. 50% of private schools registered as charities then? They aren’t companies since they’re not actually owned by any shareholder (ie can’t pay profits or dividends to anyone)?

Can’t believe that 36 pages into this people still seem to think the charitable status and VAT topic are linked.

As before.

Supermarkets (not charities) don’t charge VAT on most of what they sell.

Charities do charge VAT on anything they sell which isn’t donated.

The long-held principle has been that VAT exemption applies because private schools are an eligible body i.e. their main raison d'etre is as a provider of education. They don't exist for any other reason. The parent choosing to pay for that education doesn't alter the fact.

I would like to ask a question which is why are they no longer an 'eligible body' if they previously were? What has changed (apart from Labour needing to find some money down the back of the sofa)?

I don’t accept the premise of your questions.

1. The incremental cost of the small number of additional pupils in the state sector as a result of this policy is nowhere near the actual funding allocated per pupil. The incremental cost of adding 1 or 2 additional pupils in every class is just the cost of a few books etc. Adding, say, 2 kids to a class of, say, 26 requires no additional buildings, staff or increase in energy bills. So the additional costs are small compared to the tax revenues raised.

1. It is not illegal. The ECHR gives very broad scope to governments to raise revenue to fund public services. The court has found precisely zero taxes to be in conflict with the convention. Food, housing, heating etc are all also human rights and all attract VAT. Private schools already pay VAT on purchases, employers national insurance on staff salaries and business rates. None of those taxes have been considered to be in conflict with the ECHR. Also, Parliament decides what is legal and illegal in the UK, not the European Court of Human Rights. I can only conclude that when the original advice was obtained on this point no one thought to consult a tax lawyer.

Finally, we know that engaged parents improve education outcomes, but we don’t know why (studies have been poor quality and inconclusive). We know that parents from higher income families are more engaged in their children’s education and their children generally achieve higher attainment. We also know that having higher attaining kids in the same class improves standards for everyone. So the massive benefit of improving state school education standards from not creaming off the brightest/ more affluent kids massively outweighs any small additional cost for the taxpayer of educating a few more kids.

Unfortunately, it is boiling down to those who understand the true implications of having private schools, those children not being counted in current state school resources and what will happen to the bulk of children from middle class families that scrimp and save to send their children to private school, who will no longer be able to afford to do so and will take state school places.

there is a false savings as the state sector will need to educate these children and will need to build more schools, hire more teachers, pay running costs etc.

but it hasn’t really ever been about economics, more about being upset that people can opt for private school.

Unfortunately Liz Truss spent the money that could be used for that on her gambling mates in Tufton Street.

Well in that situation you'd be stupid to pay school fees. You seem to think it's some kind of punishment on society that you're taking up state school places that you're perfectly entitled to. That's what state schools are there for.

It's also not relevant that you're a doctor. You're not more entitled to consideration than anyone else because you used to work for the NHS.

I don't believe for a second that you've made these changes purely because of the proposed VAT. How could the VAT proposal have made it possible for you to move to your idyllic village? It sounds like it's because you've changed jobs and not to do with VAT. you've done all that because it's right for your family so .. Good for you?

None of your story means that it's wrong to charge VAT.

But St Paul’s is literally controlled by the Mercer’s a huge charitable body that does tonnes of things across education, housing etc…

www.mercers.co.uk/Associated-Bodies

Schools are closing because the birth rate is falling. There’s no need to build more schools and hiring more teachers can only be a good thing.

They won’t have to build new schools, because according to the gov.uk website only about 30% of Secondary Schools are full and slightly more Primary.

But this rationale is a bit like saying, well, we have 1 million unoccupied homes in the UK, why doesn't everyone needing a home go and live in one? We know why.

Because for the people who owned may of those homes all that matters is how much money they have and not how much good they do during their lives?

And for that matter London Zoo is a charity yet charges for entry to everyone. Does that make it any less of a charity?

The profile of need you mention (non-verbal, violent, severe behavioural issues) have specialist provision, state and private, made for them. Able, anxious autistic kids who are scared of anger and can't cope with too much sensory input don't. Schools for them don't exist in the state sector, and the private sector is really poor quality, on the whole, at disgustingly high cost.

My child is in a class of 15, and she is the 4th autistic child in that class. It's a small private school, and not hideously expensive by those standards but still, agreed, way beyond normal families. But two of the kids are from those normal families and they are working extra jobs and remortgaging to afford it. Mine, and another child, are on EHCPs. There are also two schools in a neighbouring town that are more than 50% EHCP kids, because the LA are using them to save the cost of even state specialist. It probably varies area to area but in ours, at least, some private schools have higher SEN and even EHCP levels than many state schools do. There's a private school in the next county that has a third of their kids on EHCPs and an autism base. I genuinely don't think people realise what has happened in SEN provision these past ten years, or how councils are trying to find alternatives to specialist, given state specialist costs more than mainstream private and private specialist can easily top £100,000 a year when travel is factored in (and some before it's factored in, too).

It's also worth remembering that quite a lot of kids who match the profile you cite match that profile precisely because they didn't get needs met in time. They didn't, mostly, start in primary aggressive and angry. Mainstream destroyed them. I know too many families like that, whose sweet, oddball KS1 kids are now enraged teenagers in SEMH settings.

The issue is quite discrete, though, and I don't think it would actually impact the whole VAT argument, if a carefully considered, sensible exemption was created. At the moment, you need an EHCP, and since Covid getting through the system takes a year at least and often two. It's perfectly possible for people to support the VAT being levied, and also feel that exemptions for SEN should be more widely and carefully targeted.

Basically, if a parent can prove that a smaller, gentler setting is a need and not a luxury good, then they shouldn't pay the luxury good tax. We don't on sensory aids if we can prove it's for a medical need and not a fun toy, as an example. Same principle on a larger scale.

And again, mine has an EHCP, so I am not personally affected. I just feel the exemptions, where it isn't a choice, should be there.

Private nurseries pay VAT whilst school nurseries don't- another reason private nurseries struggle.

Personally I think all education establishments should be VAT free from nurseries to universities.