Doubts grow over Labour’s VAT plan for private schools

[Blanketyre]

Article in the Observer here:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/oct/05/doubts-grow-over-labours-vat-plan-for-private-schools

I must say they've gone very quiet on it.

And yet the opposite is being gleefully cheered on by so many state school parents, some of whom are higher tax payers, who want private school parents to pay for their children’s state education.

Why do people trot out this shit repeatedly? Me and my DH easily pay in tax the £7000 + per year that my DD has cost for the last 13 years in state education (plus all the £000s that pay for other people and the services that they use). I don't give a toss whether VAT is put on PS or not really, definitely not 'gleefully cheering it on' but not sure that it will make the slightest difference to state schools because as a few pps have said, the problem in state schools is often down to shit parenting, no respect for teachers and the obstacles faced by schools in getting rid of the problem kids amongst other things.

My DD did well at an OK comprehensive (the school got results about average for the UK) and even in the top English set there was disruption, kids vaping under the desks etc. The biggest pain in the arse student vanished from the class just after mocks because I think the school could see the effect he was having.

I didn't vote Labour (didn't vote at all because I was out of the country on the day and did not think voting would make any difference anyway because there is no money for any government to spend). VAT has always been an odd tax IMO. Today I bought an iced coffee (no VAT) and a bottle of orange juice (20% VAT). I've never believed it was based on luxury/non luxury, I think it's a tax levied where a government believes it can bring in more money and Labour thought it would bring in money from people who do objectively have more money whether they believe it or not. Most governments are crap with money because if they were sensible no one would vote for them (see the outrage over the WF payment).

I've never believed it was based on luxury/non luxury, I think it's a tax levied where a government believes it can bring in more money and Labour thought it would bring in money from people who do objectively have more money whether they believe it or not.

Spot on and that's all there is to it.

VAT on school fees will raise some money because most PS parents who can, will keep their DC in PS despite VAT.

I am PS parent and obviously don't like paying more tax, but I see the point of it - that it raises revenue without too many escaping the tax. And I don't expect a mass exodus of parents from private sector either, but we will see...

Problem is, this particular VAT is cloaked in ideology and stirs up the zealots. And ministers aren't helping. They are painting this as an attempt to improve state sector (not going to happen with this VAT alone), an attempt to level the playing field (not happening), or destroy the private sector (ha!)

I wish supporters would just accept that this is going to raise about £1 billion, maybe a little less in the long run, and be happy. It's not going to change British society

And opponents would accept that this is going to happen, vast majority in the country doesn't care - rightly so, and make plans according to their circumstances.

The bigger, more important picture is that government finances is fucked. Demographic is not in our favour and no matter where you are ideologically, you will pay more tax and get fewer free government services in the next decade or so, no matter whether it's a labour or a Tory government. Or Reform

I feel so angered by this policy, the more I think about it:

Some higher rate tax payers decide to pay to send their children to different schools than the state provides (the schools which are paid for by taxpayers).

Their children therefore cost the state very little.

These parents already pay a lot of tax, mostly do not qualify for child benefit and will almost certainly not qualify for universal credit or any tax breaks. They will probably be homeowners who will therefore fund their own care when they are old, rather than being cared for in state funded care homes. They are active in the economy.

Many of these parents both work full time in order to pay for said schooling (again, good for government: lots of tax paid). Realise this is also true of many state school parents too… but there will be almost no parent of children at private school receiving unemployment benefits or universal credit- pretty much all of them will be higher rate tax payers which means that they are better off than many people but also already contribute much more to the state than many people.

Of course, it’s unfair that some people go to better schools than others… But y’know, the parents have funded it themselves. Life is unfair: there is always someone better off than you and someone worse off than you. If you compare our country as a whole to some other countries it’s unfair that all of us live here at all when some people have it much worse off elsewhere in the world.

The Labour government pretends they want to raise money by adding further tax to this type of education. But actually they are ideologically opposed to it, and ideally would ban it, because they disagree with it. It’s just dressed up so everyone can shout horrid things about the nasty, rich, higher rate tax payers. It’s a policy that cannot possibly lead to some school nirvana where all state schools become wonderful and society is suddenly fair and equal. It’s just meddling and slowly driving more pupils towards the very stretched state school system. Where teachers hate teaching. Not because they’re not paid enough specifically but because there are problems on top of problems in an overcrowded country where not enough people pay in and too many people take out. Not people’s fault just the way it is.

In addition to this, well off left wingers smugly take advantage of the system: good church schools (Tony Blair’s kids- London Oratory), grammar schools and schools in very expensive areas of the South East are accessed almost exclusively by very well off parents who could afford to send their children to private school but don’t. Or at least can afford to pay for tutors, extra curricular activities and are probably highly educated themselves. So these school places are not given to those who really need them but those whose parents are just as privileged as the private school parents.

Imagine the meltdown Keir and co would have had if their school choices had been l taken away too and a ballot system was introduced so they actually had to send their kids to schools they didn’t like. They support a system where THEY have choices, because of their privilege. They will always have ensured their own children were given a leg up, by going to church, tutoring or moving house.

It’s all so short sighted and un-thought through. Leave people alone to make their own choices.

But actually they are ideologically opposed to it, and ideally would ban it, because they disagree with it.
Yes, and they have never tried to hide it. Some of them wanted to even ban it. They have been talking against PS since practically forever.

So just accept it, that some people don't think the same way as we do about PS, these people are in power now, and move on. Because except for 7% or so households, vast majority don't care.

And here is a speculation- when Labour eventually loses power, this VAT will not be rolled back.

I don't give a toss whether VAT is put on PS or not really, definitely not 'gleefully cheering it on'
@Sweetpeasaremadeforbees you may not be but plenty are. Read the threads about it.

The bigger, more important picture is that government finances is fucked. Demographic is not in our favour and no matter where you are ideologically, you will pay more tax and get fewer free government services in the next decade or so, no matter whether it's a labour or a Tory government. Or Reform

Yes, unfortunately I agree.

But actually they are ideologically opposed to it, and ideally would ban it, because they disagree with it.

Some Labour supporters and MPs might think that but I think KS and the rest of the cabinet just like using PSs as a way of bashing the Tories by using Boris Johnson/David Cameron etc as examples of the elite still controlling the country. I think KS was actually just hoping that parents would pay up and shut up and the money would have just boosted the public money pot. Loads of manifesto spending plans and their costings are clearly bollocks, does anyone actually believe them?

The ones who say: just stop going on about it, who cares?!

I don’t think you can expect the people who are affected by this policy to just shut up and accept it, or to stop discussing it. You wouldn’t, if for example a new 20% green tax was added on to foreign holidays that you had already booked. You’d feel that it was unfair. Even if the green tax would apparently benefit people of the future by making things greener by forcing people to go on less holidays. If you really liked holidays but could only just afford them it would make you frustrated. It’s just human nature.

Not many people I know could easily accept a sudden 20% jump in rent or mortgage or car payments or anything else. So although you may feel ‘ha, it’s only a luxury’, when that luxury is your children’s education, and you work really hard to fund it, have thought a lot about whether you can afford it, adjust your life to make it work and your children are happy at school, of course you feel angry if the price of it suddenly goes up to a level that is no longer affordable because of a government policy you don’t agree with.

It’s not like anyone is asking for pity, they are just saying: I do not want to accept this and I do not agree with the reasoning behind it. They are allowed to do that.

you may not be but plenty are. Read the threads about it.

I have and I think a lot of the people (like me) didn't really give a toss about it when it was first announced but the sheer volume of threads about it on MN and the arrogance and weird convoluted arguments about how state school pupils will have their school lives upturned and devastated by the exodus from PSs has made me think that some PS parents are just tossers and they can piss off. I'm not gleeful but I don't really give a shit about how the policy affects the children at PS because I'm sure their parents never gave a shiny shit about mine. Which is absolutely fine, I don't expect them to.

A lot of them will care because many of them were (or still are) state school parents. Many parents use both systems and many of those expressing concern are those that took one or more of their DCs out of the state system because it failed them. So they absolutely do give a shiny shit.

Up to you but as a state school user who thinks the policy is damaging I don’t really get the reaction

It’s still a poor policy for education

Yes because it affects them and their family. If it didn't they wouldn't give a shiny shit.

It’s still a poor policy for education.

Quite possibly. I don't know, we'll have to see how it plays out after a few years.

I’d rather not do that to dc

I think one thing that bothers me more than anything is that the 20% added to school fees would ACTUALLY make its way to our local state schools. I’d so much prefer to pay 20% directly to them to improve facilities than into the the government coffers where it will be wasted on food for MPs and their London flats. It is not like that money is ever going to actually make much difference to state schools.

I’d rather not do that to dc

I don't think we can predict what will happen at this stage. There may be parents out there who switch their kids to state schools who actually find life better without the financial stress of affording PS.

That's true for most other tax you pay. Other than the license fee and NI, I don't think there is any other hypothecated tax?

That's true for most other tax you pay. Other than the license fee and NI, I don't think there is any other hypothecated tax?

Unfortunately during election campaigns the media seems to push political parties into proving that spending plans have been 'costed' meaning we end up with stupid ideas like PS VAT paying for 6000 more teachers when no-one knows exactly how much money will be raised. I find it crazy but all the parties seem to do it and then there's outrage when they don't do what they said they would because the money had to be spent on other stuff.

Yes that’s exactly what I meant. Of course no taxes work like this. I probably mean I resent the way it has been suggested by the government that this tax will directly pay for 6000 new state school teachers when it absolutely won’t.

Oh, I see now. Yes, this tax is heavily politicised and has fired up some people. I don't remember any other tax in recent times dressed up as a righteous tax.

Benefit cuts were often in recent past painted as virtuous, moral thing to do ('punishing benefit scroungers' etc) but first time ever seeing VAT being painted in populist colour.

Thankfully there aren't too many of these and they will soon come for the cheerleaders too.

The education secretary failed to turn up at a debate on this topic in Parliament today, the Labour representative failed to answer any valid concerns.

parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/cbe49263-67e3-4709-8316-4f360ad40591

Oh, dear! Poor James Murray MP (Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury) does not seem to be enjoying it...maybe a smidge of self-awareness from the privately-educated Labour scion? (Mum was a Labour councillor who seemed not to have had issues with privafe schools)

She/they don't care about alienating indy parents as voters, same as with pensioners. This is purely another attack on what they assume to be Tory voters in tit for tat retribution. That's why they don't engage or turn up for debates, because they know they can't justify the policies. The policies were never designed to be robust, they were designed to get back at Tory voters.
They can ignore us because we are not the people they think support them.
Now I have never and will never vote Tory but they don't even consider this however they have made damn sure I will never vote Labour again.

I’ve no idea how much tax you’ve paid however people massively underestimate how much it costs to pay their way.

The education budget is only about 12% of total government spending so suggesting you’ve paid tax of over 7k every year and claiming that covers your school costs is miles out.

An average person needs to earn 65k every single year from 18 to retirement to pay their fair share. How many households do you know who have average income of 130k consistently for over 40 years?

If you just look at the school years a family with 3 children at state school need to earn around 200k to not be a burden on other taxpayers for the time their children are at school.

The point is that the vast majority are subsidised by an ever reducing number of net contributors.

There is a big problem in the UK where lower and mid range earners pay way too little tax compared to literally every other western county. Higher earners paying more in the UK than virtually all other countries.

The whole taxation and expenditure equation needs to be reset. Simply taking more and more from the groups who already bankroll the system isn’t the answer.

The private school parents subsided your children’s education. What did you do for their children?

All these comments saying "if you can't afford it then tough youll have to join the 93%" are fine until you realise what that actually means from an economics perspective.

We can easily afford it but I have to say, like many parents I have spoken to now (and trust me, people are definitely thinking about the next natural break point), we absolutely won't be using private for secondary because I think it is grossly unfair and I think it also reaches a point where you have to decide whether you want to pay that much, even if you can afford it. It's OK for us, our kids are extremely bright and so we will use grammar school - not everyone can. But really, with an income in the top 1%, people like us ought to be less of a burden to the state - not more.

And as someone who went to grammar school myself, I thought it was fortunate that so many private schools meant there were more grammar school places for everyone else. We really ought to be encouraging people not to be a burden on the state. Madness.

I like the bucket with a hole in it analogy above - so true.

And no I'm definitely not a tory.