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.

"Cherry pick some figure", you mean like you did in your previous comment?

Our school doesn't have embossed stationery or AstroTurf. Our pool was built in 1986.

On the other hand we provide swimming facilities for three village state primaries. We run events for the town that the council is no longer willing to do. And despite being non-selective, we get everyone through GCSE maths and English. 100% every year. No need for remedial maths classes. We are just a small, sound, low key academic school.

Bridget Phillipson really is a silly ignorant woman, isn't she. Policies driven by nothing more than spiteful dogma.

Who says they won’t be? I think we can safely assume there will be other revenue raising decisions in the budget.

Yes and she's happy to use the astroturf of local indy schools to play her hockey on. Same as Starmer is happy to go and watch his daughter play sports at the facilities of the local indy schools

Whatever they introduce won't alter the fact that wealthy state school parents won't be paying this tax though will they?

I think lots of people are just sick of hearing about it

Then they can scroll past. The title of the thread is very clear.

The vast majority couldn’t care less. Private education brings unfair advantages. Anybody can be a state educating parent -93% are. Don’t want to pay VAT on this luxury item don’t buy it and join the 93%. Labour will clobber the richest in other ways alongside this, I think we can be sure of that.

My view has always been that there would be shift on the private school issue. I thought they would get rid of the charity status as that sounds and looks odd as private schools aren't charities but have some way of avoiding the VAT burden - if always felt their would be some slight of hand.

The problem labour has is that they were so bullish in their behaviour over the winter fuel payments - so if they do roll back on this then they will loose credibility with some. They could have managed the winter fuel payments issue so much better ie given a longer lead time, reduced it rather than abolish, had a higher threshold and done this gradually.

I don't feel that they have really thought through how their actions appear. KS is coming over so negatively. I am no fan of BJ of RS but they were more positive than KS. Gordon Brown was admittedly not the most positive and upbeat PM but the difference there is that he had been a very successful Chancellor so he had already established his credibility. The way things are going I can't see a second term happening for Labour.

Actually the inequalities in state education create more unfair advantages than indy schools do! Variations in regional funding, outcomes for kids etc all vary massively within state sector and it's a postcode lottery. The state SEN offer is broken beyond repair and that's one of the biggest reasons for inequality.
Fix those inequalities and most people wouldn't send their kids to indy schools.

I will be claiming my state funded grammar school places at secondary don't worry.

You’ll see people opt out generally if all Labour do is ‘clobber the rich’

They've already gone back on the nom dom tax as it was a dud too. People who think you can just keep hitting up the taxes are not thinking it through.

It’s not good policy, just pre GE red meat which they can now drop as well.

Absolutely.

Most people don't want to pay more tax. That's all this boils down to. People will always come up with reasons why they shouldn't. Or they should, "but to make it fair others should too then". I'm not saying if they are right or wrong.

Tax those on higher incomes: "but I'll just work less and you'll get less growth!" "I'm already paying 60% effective rate of tax!"

Tax those on lower incomes: "but what about those on 100k+ in their detached houses and expensive holidays?!"

Tax non-doms "I'll just leave then"

Tax businesses "but we generate growth"

Tax individuals "what about my company owner boss in her detached house and expensive holidays"

Tax private school parents "xyz because xyz etc"

Nobody wants to pay more tax.

Well numbers are dropping in applications for grammar and the vast majority couldn’t care less so crack on. Not everybody wants single sex, pressured education for their kids.

After COVID, a Gov commissioned report said it would need an investment of 15 Billion to actually address all of the shortcomings in the state sector. Obviously that was not going to happen and the person who wrote it resigned when Boris offered, I think, about 15 million instead (exact figures may be out, but proportions I think are correct).
If this policy is meant to be raising 1.5 billion, that's pretty woefully short of anything meaningful and just having a pot of money doesn't actually create additional skilled teachers. If 15 Billion is what's needed, everyone, the whole tax paying population, needs to fund it through income tax. Putting this burden on a tiny minority many if whom CANT actually afford it with just a bit of a stretch or one fewer holiday is simply wrong. Doing it mid year and with no sensible nuances like introducing it at point of entry for instance is, to me, the biggest indicator of the true nature of the policy as populist rather than fiscally responsible.

Why shouldn’t they be happy to do this? Indy schools are supposed to encourage this as part of their charitable status. This policy isn’t about punishment and/or eradication, it’s about a fundamental right on where VAT should be added.

This would be a much fairer way to raise cash for state schools. Making all the wealthy parents using state schools (who could afford to fund their own kids education but use tax payer funds instead), to contribute.

https://capx.co/labour-asked-for-a-better-way-to-pay-for-education-here-it-is/

None of that makes this a policy that should go ahead

They are selective. They are selective for money.

No the biggest inequalities are brought about by private education. People know the advantages they’re buying hence a fraction of the 7% buying private education that can’t now afford being up in arms .

This.

@Didimum Because she literally posted to say kids don't need astroturf. The bile she has spewed over indy schools yet she is happy to use them when she needs them. That is hypocrisy.

Some pp will be keen eg didimum

Yes we do, it’s interesting.

I am also very skeptical that this post is genuine. I have never heard a state school teacher post with this kind of tone about any subject. And I've also never known a state school that depended "seriously" on private school facilities to any extent; at most these were nice-to-haves that were occasionally used.

I agree the policy won't raise much money, all things considered. But I don't know any state school teachers who care much either way.