To ask if anyone is clued up on the challenge this week to VAT on school fees?

[feesss]

we went to look round a school this morning and we obviously asked about VAT and the lady showing us round said there has been a challenge this week so it may not happen? Is anyone aware of this? I can’t see much online about it?

Starmer doesn't want those 'vocal' parents doing too much anyway, he will readjust schools until all dc receive a lower education

I agree mostly primary but where we live there is a 3 tier system so up to year 9 it's not an issue really. Then depending on the area there are still small classes..DD has 9 in hers at high school but the average is 17. This is a big school too.

I know we aren't the only state school like this. People should consider different areas if that's possible. It's an option.

It just makes zero sense to me to impose a policy that will harm but not help. I have said repeatedly that if there was a snowballs chance in hell of this working and addressing the issues in state I'd be for it, regardless of personal impact. But to be ok with it harming existing kids in the sector just to what? Level down? Make it "fair" that's equally shit for everyone? I simply cannot understand the logic of that. How about instead we bite the bullet as a society, EVERYONE pays 1-2p more on income tax and we actually raise enough to do something meaningful. @Willyoujustbequiet its great that you found what you needed in state but many many don't and that simply highlights what many of us have been saying, that there's just as much inequality within the state sector as between private and state. This is a spite tax and nothing else. It drips from some peoples' posts. Sad really.

Because it’s not a human right defined by the ECHR for the state (or PS) to cater for each education choice, only not to prevent it. It’s a negative right.

Here is the pertinent text of article 2 protocol 1, have a read and see if you think the Government ever had a chance of implementing this:
’the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”

I also think when hormones come into play things can exacerbate very quickly for some children with SEND. Couple that with the exam pressure and testing and high discipline environment in some state schools, it is a recipe for disaster for some kids. A lot of kids have sensory issues and even rigid uniform policies are enough to stress them out and send them over the edge.
There is also the attendance pressure in state schools and much shorter holidays.

Also online schools will now also be subject to the VAT? So parents with children with EBSA will not have to pay up unless they organise individual tutors under the VAT threshold? How is this OK? I just do not get it. Are they going to tax online schools provided out of other jurisdictions as well and are they going to regulate them properly?

We have no small nurturing secondary schools anywhere near us, like many in the country. This is the problem with the state system; it’s a postcode lottery. Those who don’t see the need for private schools are often those with the luxury of having access to great state provision. Not all of us do.

I know not everyone has but for some employment is much more flexible these days moving might be an option for some.

It can free up equity in other areas that could cover the VAT too.

That doesn’t address the problem. It just pushes more children into fewer schools, increasing the competition for places. Many families love where live, and often provide support for nearby relatives. They shouldn’t have to move to access a decent education.

I don't believe it will happen tbh. I think the vast majority will stay in the private system and from the links posted on here on other threads there is capacity in the state system.

As for the rest well welcome to everyone else's world. You pays your money you takes your choice as they say.

Of course they’ll stay. This is all about the entitled being outraged about having to pay more, doesn’t mean they can’t pay more.
These schools are businesses and if you do t think you’re getting value for money, then don’t use them.

Of course they’ll stay. This is all about the entitled being outraged about having to pay more, doesn’t mean they can’t pay more.

Nobody agrees, including the Government.

These schools are businesses and if you do t think you’re getting value for money, then don’t use them.

The ones that are businesses are businesses, the ones that are charities are charities. Labour had to be reminded of this in the courts as well, again nobody else is questioning this.

If every parent pulls their child out of indy then it will cost the taxpayer £4 billion per year. Indy schools save the state that amount each year. We don't ask the state to pay for our children's education yet we are being penalised? The people who don't pay directly and expect the state to pay for their kids are telling us we should pay more?

The state does not have to subsidise private education - that was established in a case called the Belgian Linguistics Case. But it should not interfere in its provision. The VAT is an interference by the state in the Art 2 right (the fees themselves are not - not imposed by the state).

However, @Mrsbabbecho and I do not agree on this this being a winning argument! Art 2 is not an absolute right, it's qualified. The state can interfere if it has a legitimate aim. The government has a strong claim here to a legitimate aim. The measure taken to achieve the aim must be proportionate. The courts cut the state a lot of slack here (margin of appreciation), are mindful of the accountability of the democratic process (which judges are not subject to, and are inclined to be deferential to on issues of proportionality) and are likely to acknowledge that paying VAT on services is not unusual.

Is tax on education amongst ECHR signatories usual? How many signatories tax education? Is it 0? Is tax on services only between the ages of 4 and 18 usual?

Hopefully, we should find out shortly who is correct. I say hopefully, as I fully expect Labour to first delay and then drop (amend the policy to a massive extent to save face) rather than face the embarrassment of losing the legal action. I personally think it would be healthier to put the issue to bed once and for all. Then it’s time for a discussion around some sort of education voucher scheme, next Government most likely.

Is tax on education amongst ECHR signatories usual? How many signatories tax education? Is it 0?

Errrrr, (googles) it does actually seem to be zero

You've got the rhetorical flourishes to win the case!

Your posts are very encouraging

The ECHR is only of relevance if the UK remains a signatory. Rather obvious, but Team Kemi have restated that shouldn't be relied on.

This seems to be a non-point! The ECHR is only relevant at all because of (flimsy) hopes that it will stop Starmer putting VAT on school fees.

By the time Badenoch might find herself in Downing St and pulling out of the Convention either the VAT will have been ruled to be ECHR-compliant, in which case whatever Badenoch does with regard to the ECHR has no impact on what she does with school fees, or VAT on school fees will have been dropped by Starmer as non-compliant, in which case the argument is dead and buried, because Badenoch sure as hell isn't going to use her new-found freedom to trample over human rights in order to introduce it!

More likely Starmer will have to pull the VAT due to non compliance, Labour lose all credibility, Tory get back in and pull us out of ECHR and when Labour eventually get back in the country is further in the doldrums, but wait, Labour can finally fulfil their almost 100 year dream of destroying private schools - by which time, the country will be so poor there will be hardly anyone left in them. But it doesn’t matter - at least they got to destroy private schools!

Looking at recent political history and Brexit, that all sounds far more likely.

‘The ones that are businesses are businesses, the ones that are charities are charities. Labour had to be reminded of this in the courts as well, again nobody else is questioning this.’

Christ, don’t get me started on ‘charity status’ of some of these businesses… what a joke that is.
They provide a service, for a fee - a large fee, they are businesses with paying customers. Gullible ones, but customers all the same…

All of which is spent on providing the services in the case of those that are in fact charities...unlike the academy chains who take money from the Government and ARE in fact, businesses. And please sod off with the sneery "gullible ones". I'm perfectly aware of my kids' needs the fact that state could not provide. For many kids, they may not need what PS provides, but some do, so paying for it, which I would MUCH rather not be doing is a necessity.

How do you square with MATs when they are run for profit and have bloated SLTs + 6 figure Heads? At least charities have to re-invest whereas MATs don't. They literally make money (taxpayer money) out of education

Could I ask where is the impact assessment? There seem to be allusions in the press that they have admitted harm to children with SEND: where is the full report?

The absolute most money making that’s done out of education is independent special schools, which do tend to be run as businesses not charities so have shareholders and there’s no restriction on what profits they can draw out as dividends so the bigger the profit the bigger the dividend. Most if these charge upwards of £50k per child at lower end and some as much as £250k all paid by the tax payer. There are some that are fantastic and provide really good support for the children and really care but a growing amount are just in it as it’s a sector where a lot of money can be made