VAT on school fees not applied retroactively- ultra wealthy are safe

[Kitkat189]

VAT on school fees won’t be applied retroactively to school fees paid before 29 July meaning if you paid your child’s entire education upfront, you escape the 20% increase. I know people who did this in the hopes that this would happen and now it has. TELL ME HOW THIS IS FAIR??? The ultra wealthy won’t be impacted by this at all while other families are going to have to move their children. To those of you who support VAT on school fees, please know that it won’t apply to everyone and that some of the revenues from this will be lost. If you think it won’t matter because very few will have prepaid, you should disagree with this on principle.

regardless of where you stand on the topic of VAT on school fees, I think we can agree this is fundamentally unfair.

I am truly truly an awful hypocrite

I fundamentally do not believe that something as critical as education, which so determines the life chances of so many children, should be something that you can pay to get “more / better” is right. I think it’s abhorrent.

However

brace yourself….

I went to private school from 3-18 and believe i benefited enormously from it

My children attend private schools and i see how incredible their school experience is

It’s gross hypocrisy, but when it comes to my children…. i really don’t give a hoot

Yep the very richest will be fine

People getting excited about those on the margin of affordability having to move their dc

That’s about all this will do

People keep bleating on about how it's unfair that only the super wealthy will be able to buy educational privilege. "Surely you don't want a system where only the super wealthy can access private education?!"

Guess what? Yes, I fucking do.

Ideally, I want a situation where no parent can buy their child educational advantages.

But that's just not possible, so I'll settle for far, far fewer parents being able to do it.

The children of the super wealthy are always going to have advantages. There's literally nothing that can be done to stop that. Make private schools unaffordable and they'll hire private tutors in their homes and get even more advantages. But there can be something done to stop some of the other private school kids having an advantage over others. So I'm glad that's happening.

I understand this and I don't judge. I'd have done the same if I had actually felt that private school was worth the investment. We all do what we think is best for our kids within an imperfect system that isn't exactly as we would have ideally designed it.

i love this response 🙏

It’s not really going to help you. Some people who spent money on fees will move to better state schools and do well anyway

Your dc may well end up doing what they would without this policy

@condenext Why would I want the government to make private school more affordable for anyone? If they hand cash to private school parents to subsidise their fees, how does that improve state schools in any way? Your bizarre logic seems to be that state schools will step up their game to entice private school parents to spend that cash in their school instead, as if state schools are just choosing to sit on their laurels and not be as good a private ones.

And as for "their kids can afford tons more stuff than state school kids anyway"- that's just irrelevant. I don't care that their kids can afford a pony or more holidays. I'm directly talking about buying educational privilege that will put them at an advantage for the rest of their lives. Paying for a few tutors and sports is not the same as buying a whole educational experience and future network. I don't believe that "non super wealthy" private school parents (who are always claiming they're sacrificing to the max to afford the school anyway) are going to be able to fully replicate that themselves if private schools didn't exist.

@EasternStandard Except it will help me (or rather, my children) because it will level the playing field a bit more. More children in state schools means more pressure on the government to fund them properly. And it has a knock on effect for the future- my child might not achieve any more than they would currently, but they would at least be competing with peers who had the same chances they did, not kids who started ten paces ahead.

I don't care if it directly improves my child's personal situation, I care that it makes the starting point fair for everyone.

And I fully have confidence that my child will succeed and do well in a state school. I don't believe that parents who don't trust their children's ability to succeed on their own merits should be able to buy that achievement for them.

And it's the same attitude some well known Labour MP's have, so it's a hypocrisy you share with them.

Do as I say, as they they say.

You should disagree with this on principle.

On everyday debate, on every discussion, on every disagreement I demand the right to do the thinking for myself. If somebody tells me what I should think, I automatically ignore them and every single thing they say.

Being rich cushions you from most things. Having to use the NHS for example. To be able to pay for dental care.

Even with the fuel allowance change, the uber-wealthy won’t notice a thing. Those just above the threshold for pension credit will notice it.

That’s life.🤷‍♀️

More children in state schools means more pressure on the government to fund them properly

It doesn’t do this. It just means you need more state expenditure to fund them properly,

I think that is wrong on all levels, but a very clever move by the government. They can look like they are taxing the wealthy, but in truth they aren't, just yet again the middle of the range parents. The worst hit income for tax is going to get hit even harder! (And no, I'm not one of those nor have a child in private school, just think it's unfair that the 100k a year earners pay a disproportionate amount of tax compared to the super wealthy

Those earning 100k a year are not "middle of the range".

whilst my hypocrisy is pretty appalling

i don’t think it’s up there with having same stance as me and being a Labour MP!

No, quite.

Those are heights only they can reach.

VAT becomes due at the earlier point of invoice or payment. Unless they change the law on VAT across all areas then retroactive application isn’t possible.

But I am so bored of reading how we have evaded taxes by not paying VAT. I have 3 dc all of whom have been privately educated the entirety of their school careers - we have paid fees but also paid our taxes to fund state education for others.
We have all paid our taxes to fund state education for others (including those with no kids) and to fund a whole raft of other services that we may never use. We can't pick and choose where our taxes go so no idea why you think you are in some sort of unique position here

@persistentyes No, not noble of me. I’ve been a bit on the fence about sending my children to a private school because of the cost and not seeing a ton of value in it. It appears to me the better educational outcomes seem driven mainly by heavy tutoring in my area which is another hidden cost!
I did it initially because in my family it’s the done thing to invest in education before anything else and my own parents saved to send me to university without debt. A natural assumption is that we should sacrifice on lifestyle to give our children the best education we can afford.
However the VAT makes something we can kind of afford now even more of a stretch. On top of the fees going up a lot in recent years. So now it just feels sensible to draw a line and give up on this.
I’m just annoyed with the lack of consideration for how actual households budget (on a school year basis for pretty much everyone I know!) And also my children love their school despite me being really ambivalent about it so changing them mid year would be a huge deal for them.

how do your children feel about moving schools?

Our school fees for two children required circa £85k of pre tax income each year (obviously half that if you only have one) For most families that is a significant financial commitment which requires sacrifices in other areas

Do you really not see how tone deaf this comment is?

Tone deaf is the theme that runs through these threads. But sometimes they are good for a laugh.

tone deaf to some