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.

@Seenandheard shit - don’t get them started babe it’s not worth it - they get all angry and upset and a bit ranty

I find this a really tricky one. I kind of argue back and forth with myself on it!

Firstly, to answer the OP’s questions, I always knew about (I) but only found out about (2) reading threads on here.

But you find that, ultimately, the many threads on here aren’t really about VAT but our extreme two tiered education system in the UK and the privilege a private school education confers. This does seem unique to the UK. Yes, other countries have private schools but there isn’t the same pride or advantage in sending your child there that many have in the UK. It is just another school and another choice. And, generally (yes there are exceptions, especially in Switzerland and the U.S) the fees aren’t comparable to those in the UK.

We came fairly recently out of an old money system where your parentage and breeding determined your chances in society. We can now relatively easily buy privilege and private schools offer that. There are many people who might have been termed ‘nouveaux riches’ slightly haughtily who choose private schools, so that disappears within a generation (which is probably a good thing).

But, ultimately, if you think private schools are a societal problem, you should be brave and abolish them, not just make them a bit more expensive.

However, I do think that those that are managed well and understand they have many important stakeholders, including the community in which they are situated, can be a real force for good (Westminster, which intends to go ‘needs blind’ in about a decade, and Charterhouse, which runs an amazing hub for aspiring Physics teachers, spring to mind).

I, personally, would be in favour of mandating private schools to fulfill their societal obligations (certain % of full bursaries, sharing of facilities fully when not in use, not just occasionally, supporting state pupils in rare sixth form subjects). Some schools are already meeting those criteria. Others would have to make large adaptations and maybe increase fees to do so.

But, with the above, it would make a clear positive difference to the communities and those who chose private would maybe embrace the communitarian aspect as well.

VAT on the other hand won’t raise a lot and will be hard to introduce compassionately.

I’m delighted at the fees being introduced and am well aware that the VAT doesn’t cover the cost

but that’s not the main point

private school less talented kids the opportunity to leapfrog their state educated counterparts. That is unfair and not meritocratic.

so I’m quietly enjoying the frothing of those who are outraged that the may no longer be able to afford to pay for their kids to queue jump. Though I’m well aware that there will be plenty who can afford the increase so it’s not going to end the unfairness.

1. Hmmm having a free education system is a crucial element of being a developed country. Everyone pays through taxation for the benefit of living in a country where people receive an education. Whether you choose to have children or not or whether within that structure you opt to home school or for private schooling is largely irrelevant unless it was done en mass. The figures discussed here in terms of savings are negligible when it comes to govt budgets - populations increase and decrease the provision needs to remain.
2. But that is not true in the UK presumably?

And don’t get my started about the time I found out stammers daughter is in a private school now…it was clearly just an election winning tactic.

Weird. There are a number of posters on this thread who would have you believe that the tax change is a calculated attack by Labour on private schools because they hate success and want to drag everyone down to their level.

But here we've got a Labour politician who's happy to send his child to private school and, as he's unlikely to be unaware that there will be VAT added, he's content to pay the extra without all the endless, tedious whining?

Maybe it really isn't an attack on private schools after all. Maybe it really is just a change in the tax regime to better reflect priorities...

Quite the rant in the OP from someone who wants succinct to the point answers ;) . (Norway has loads of oil and gas money - and almost no one sends their kids to private school)

Anyway - as it happens I am not in favour of private schooling but think it is inconsistent with individual rights to ban businesses setting up to offer education and for people to choose to pay for it. But businesses they are.

I do think it is wrong though, to charge VAT on private schools when other educational services are VAT free. What next: VAT on Uni fees? I very much hope not!

However, I do think that private schools should lose their charitable status. Letting the state school use the pitches on days you don't need them is not meaningful. Yes, they have bursaries, scholarships etc - OK, do that through the school's charitable foundation. The whole damn school with its £50k a year fees for the wealthiest ion society should hardly be a charity.

Our society is set up to provide free education and health services to all. I have no problem with kids transferring from private to state schools.

And most people with the money to pay school fees are in some way dependent on a workforce or client base that DOES rely on the state systems of health and education. If as an employer you (collectively as fee paying parents) had to pay salaries to enable all your employees to privately educate their kids you might make a lot less profit. Most businesses make money from the labour of state educated employees so my heart does not bleed for your generosity in removing your own children from state schools.

I don’t think that’s correct anyway

20% tax on any sector would damage it, unfortunately people really like it when it’s about other children

You start a thread and think you can then tell people what they can and cannot say on it? I'll think you'll find it doesn't work like that. In a public space like this, people can, and will, take your opening post wherever they (not you) choose.

I'll prove that by saying in response to you, it's up to the public schools to decide if they pass part or all of the vat on to parents. If they choose to pass it all on to you, it may make you wonder if it's the profits they are making from you that is most important to them, not the education of your children.

just a thought

Oh, FFS. We pay VAT on most things we buy. Private education is something you buy. You don't have to buy it, there is an alternative. It's nothing to do with hating success and everything to do with treating private education like everything bloody else we pay for. You'll have paid it on the car you bought, your TV, your phone, your fridge. Hell, I even had to pay it on sanitary products when I needed them.
Why do you think this one thing you purchase should be exempt? I'm successful enough to afford a number of things. I expect to pay vat on them. I don't consider it's because every government that has instigated those taxes hates my success.

Falling birth rates mean that there should be places available in state schools, perhaps not in the more desirable school or nearby locations. Those people priced out of private school will have money to spare which they no longer spend on private schools and they might incur VAT on those purchases so the government will potentially gain again. Better than lining the pockets of some of the private schools.

Delaying it until 2025 means that those in exam years (current yr10 and yr12) should be able to finish their courses, which seems fair. Other year groups can move now.

Once again the majority of people don’t understand the basics

(A) charging VAT is nothing to do with being a charity or not. It’s do with the law at the time about what VAT can be charged on. Farmers and supermarkets are for profit and don’t charge VAT on milk or carrots etc. Similarly charities do charge VAT on most non-donated items they sell.

(B) most private schools are charities for the simple reason that no-one owns them, and any profits, rather than being paid to shareholders as dividend, have to be reinvested back to provide education. Any surplus they make the charity trustees can decide to either save in the charity, use to provide bursaries, or make investments (new classrooms, books etc). You can’t stop them being charities. It’s not like shareholders will magically appear and start taking profits and dividends out of them. Why are they charities? Well most were set up back in the day when there wasn’t state provided education by some rich folks to provide education, and were done so as charities.

I'd hazard a guess that an additional 20% tax on Rolex watches, Hermes handbags or Chanel No5 would be unlikely to have a major impact on their sales figures.

Interesting. As a numbers nerd, I didn’t know that’s why they were set up in the first place.

Also untrue and often used as an argument by people who are happy to use untruths to try and prove a point

sorry this is just daft and ignorant and shows you have a misconception about private schools.

I have twins - my son goes to a far superior free government school than his twin sister, who went to a similarly excellent free school, but ended up in the private sector after nearly having a breakdown due to her mental health and undiagnosed Sen needs.

my son’s free school is amazing - we could not be happier and I wish all the time my daughter had the education and experiences he has had. Her private school experience has not been easy to be honest - academically, pastorally, socially etc I consider her private school inferior to her brother’s free school. But she needed to be there for the smaller class sizes or she might not have finished school at all.

people with limited or zero experience of private schools think of top private schools when they think of private - but the majority of private schools are not like that. They are small local schools pitched as an alternative to the large class sizes of government schools and more suited to children with neurodiversity or mental health needs.

Why would they "have" to? They aren't linked. And crucially there is no state funded alternative to a university.

The prob is @Seenandheard many registered as charities anf its seen as elitism so not many will agree with you.

I agree that none should be charities, that all should pay taxes and paying for a non essential service is VATable.

My concern is that if parents can no longer afford private school fees, we dont have enough space for these kids in state schools. But honestly I think you'll make it work cos having your child in a class of <15 is the best opportunity for them.

As with everything, there's a lot more nuance to this than your two 'facts' would indicate.

There are strong, valid ideological arguments for and against private tuition. The VAT debate is really getting muddied by the private school debate. I jam strongly against private schools existing full stop. I therefore don't think there's anything wrong with putting VAT on the fees because really, I think they're not something to be thought of as 'good for society', which is what is behind the VAT exemption.

Of course the existing status quo gives a balance of savings from some people sending their kids to private school. That's a no brainer but it's not as straight forward as you put forward. It's not a 'problem' for the cost of education to go up when it's creating a fairer society - it's just creating a need to get funded by progressive taxation in other ways. In basic terms, instead of 'saving' the state the education cost, in a fairer society your kid would go to a state school and you would pay more in tax, because you can definitely afford it. Clearly, it's more complicated, but that's where your idea you are 'saving' the state falls down because it's just looking at the here-and-now rather than long term goals.

I wasn't personally aware VAT was 'banned' for education in Europe (I expect it's more like VAT here there are regulations that stipulate VAT treatment rather than the dramatic 'banning' you write about)- but it's not really relevant. Countries have their own ideologies for levels of taxation and state support and it's not surprising some are different from ours.

Q1 largely irrelevant
Q2 irrelevant - we are not in the EU (although closer alignment & an even harder brexit will not endear us to anybody including ourselves)

But you are asking entirely the wrong questions
Q1 are we happy to be in breach of articles 2 & 14 of the ECHR (which we are still a member of) as was the legal advice to previous Labour administrations.l? IMO this doesn't get past the new AG.
Q2 do we instead choose to become a full on Faragist & remove ourselves from the ECHR as proposed by some Tory loons when their Rwanda policy was deemed to be in breach of article 3, although I suspect that this too was just political performative cruelty?

It's a shame you feel like that.
I would like all SEN kids to have a place where they could get the best education possible.

1. I do have concerns about the VAT change having unintended consequences, such as leading to even more disproportionate house price increases in desirable catchment areas. But my reasons for supporting it are more ideological than financial- I believe that inequality is getting out of control in this country, and education and opportunity are where that starts. Something needs to be done.
2. I am well aware of that, but thanks to the actions of 52% of the population, we aren’t in the EU. I tried quite hard to get that decision changed. Harder than most people. I’m not now also going to take responsibility for all the consequences.

The only problem is that is how the States work. You end up getting neighbourhoods full of only rich/upper middle classes and no one else. So you get slums and you get really awful schools. I didn’t go private in the States because whatever the taxation was in your catchment, that’s what you got. I had pretty outstanding schools (middle class), but all the houses were bought up and no poor/working class could touch that education. Hence, it’s more complicated than that. If they had to, I agree to completely ban private education but massively invest in the state system. As someone that has been here for 24 years, I haven’t seen the education system improve. It just seems to get cut. Apparently next year, they are cutting teacher’s assistants now too. It’s never ending.

Even when we were in the EU, VAT was payable on a whole range of educational services. HMRC excludes education in formal settings from the VAT regime, but all private/business type education (tutoring, workshops, training etc) is VATable.

This doesn’t make sense - stammer is a wealthy man - no one would buy this as labour attacking successfully wealthy people to drag them down to their level - people would want to be dragged up to stammers level!

it’s about inciting the masses who are angry that they don’t have as much money as others to vote for labour as they will attack the rich. It was about leveraging animosity about the class divide to get more votes. But basic economics means you need wealthy people in a country earning money and paying taxes to fund a welfare system - so this anti rich is not a great strategy.

Yes to both.
We used private when we lived in the NW the state when we moved to Hampshire. My kids were lucky receiving a great education in both sectors.

The thing with the policy that I find frustrating is that it will not do anything to bring the wealthy into the state sector. It will not affect very affluent parents at all. The ones who will struggle and take their kids out are the ones scrimping to pay 15k a year in fees in areas outside the SE. Very often, these parents have moved to private because they’ve been failed by the state sector either due to SEN needs or their child struggling at the comprehensive.They’re working evenings and weekends on top of their f/t job just to meet the payments. I knew quite a few parents like this when we lived in the NW and fees were 10-12k. It’s these kids that will be pulled out not the kids whose parents can easily afford the 28k a year fees and rock up in their Range Rovers wearing gym gear and dry robes.