Is Bridget Phillipson's tweet accurate?

[Seriouslyy]

VAT debate aside - can someone please explain to me why Bridget Phillipson has linked more teachers to embossed stationary or more mental health support to pools?

My first thought was its just propaganda, but surely the Minister for Education would post something that is accurate so I am wondering what I have misunderstood?

I thought private school parents themselves are paying the VAT rather than the private schools? Bridget's tweet seems to be suggesting private school parents are paying for pools and stationary but now instead will be paying for teachers and mental health support? I'm very confused.

Bridget Phillipson's twitter post
"Our state schools need teachers more than private schools need embossed stationery.
Our children need mental health support more than private schools need new pools.
Our students need careers advice more than private schools need AstroTurf pitches."

Education Secretary’s private schools tweet ‘propagates class war’, says Tory MP | Evening Standard

Yes I don't understand why she felt the need to tweet that. They are adding the VAT, why does she need to be vindictive?

Maybe I am just dumb then but I didn't go to private school so that could be it.

But I did go to uni and her tweet makes no sense because the VAT is being paid for by parents (schools are just processing the VAT for the government) and it is not a case of private schools doesn't get a pool so the mental health services are improved in state schools - there is zero correlation between the two. Private school fees pay for facilities not the VAT!

She was back on Twitter making a similarly inane comment last night. I think she needs to step away from the subsidised House of Commons bar. Whatever your view on the policy, late night, social media rants isn’t a good look.

I agree - we also need more women in politics so I would love it if she was representing us with something intelligent to say! I am not sure how long she is going to last.

It’s just a spiteful, vindictive, shit stirring comment.

You can even hear the tone leap off the page.

Our children need mental health support more than private schools need new pools.

• well, my DCs private schools didn’t have pools. There was a private school in our area that had a pool, and they let every school in the town have lessons there, let private lessons be held there every night in the community, and let our excellent town swimming club train there. The school closed due to dwindling no.s, the local council decided against buying it to make into a much needed state school, and now there’s no pool for kids to swim in.

Our students need careers advice more than private schools need AstroTurf pitches.

Again, never seen an Astro pitch. We’ve got a field they play in, and let the community use at night and at the weekends, but this may be charged now as private school parents shouldn’t be subbing them now.

Also, I think you’ll find private schools use emails and not letter headed paper.

But she knows all this, she just whipping up a class war.

I don’t think she understands her own policy to be honest. She posted yesterday “Today, the Conservatives tried to use Parliamentary time to protect private schools' tax breaks.”. She seems to think it’s the schools which will shoulder the tax burden. I’m not sure she realises that it’s parents who have to pay the VAT, not the schools. If she does realise that, perhaps she thinks that schools should mitigate the rise by cutting costs and reducing fees. She’s said she doesn’t want them to reduce bursaries. Perhaps she wants them to reduce their facilities, but I’m confused there as well, because she has said how important hockey is to her, and she plays on private school pitches. Where will she play if those pitches don’t exist? They must be using private school pitches for a reason. She obviously recognises the benefit of the community sharing the private school facilities so surely she can’t be suggesting they get rid of those facilities

No that’s not right. The end consumer pays the VAT, in this case the parents. The provider of the service, here the school, collects it and passes it to the government. Private schools have always paid VAT, and unlike state schools they haven’t been able to reclaim it. Now they will be able to offset the VAT they pay in delivering the education so in fact the schools will be paying less VAT when this comes in (though for most schools little of their expenditure is subject to VAT).

I am not sure she actually understands her own policy. Certainly I have never heard her explain it accurately.

She smirks every time she discusses the policy. It’s easy to see what her motivation is.

Adding VAT onto education is wrong, whatever your motivation is. Nurseries and universities next?

I think you might be muddled. There is a difference between input and output VAT.

Input VAT. This is the VAT which schools currently pay on any goods and service they buy in, which is subject to VAT. They cannot, at the moment, reclaim that VAT, unlike state schools. Private schools are already paying VAT.

Output VAT. This is tax paid for by the consumer, ie the parents. The schools will have to charge that VAT on their invoices, and will have to account for it to HMRC. The schools will have no option but to charge a full 20% on their base fees.

The only thing a private school can do is to adjust the base fee on which the 20% is charged. Once they are VAT registered, they will be able to reclaim the input VAT, possibly enabling them to reduce their base fee.

@SinkingVoter and @Another76543 - yes, you are both correct - I have not explained myself well. What I was trying to put into my own words was this extract from gov.uk:
“Does this mean private school fees will go up by 20%?
We don’t expect that raising VAT will cause private school fees to go up by 20%.
This is because private schools, like other businesses, don’t have to reflect the VAT increase in the amount fee payers are charged.
We expect that private schools will try to minimise any fee increases.”

To be fair to you, that explanation from the government is dreadful! Saying they “don’t have to reflect the VAT increase in the amount fee payers are charged” is extremely misleading. They have to charge 20% on whatever fee level they have. A better explanation would be to say “we expect schools to reduce their fee level to mitigate the effect of the 20% VAT”.

I’m not sure how they expect schools to cut fees by 20%. Their staff costs are around 80% of their expenditure. So, they either need to get rid of pretty much all other expenditure (impossible, given energy bills etc), or cuts will have to be made to staff costs (redundancies/pay cuts). They are being dishonest in saying that schools can choose not to pass on the VAT.

It's an odd remark smacks of jealousy.

I agree - the government want private schools to be businesses but they also want them to cut their services to reduce fees so that the VAT can be reduced. If private schools are businesses they have in theory a duty to their shareholders to make profits not losses?

It's all a mess as calling them businesses is again not accurate and spin - my dcs one is a charity and 9 percent of kids on bursaries.

So they want them to be businesses, take away charity status but also keep bursaries, community engagement and sharing resources with state.

This is a Jekyll and Hyde policy.

Exactly. They expect them to cut costs to reduce fees, but they don’t want things like bursaries or community use of facilities to be cut. That pretty much leave staff costs as the main way of cutting costs.

And no discussion of staff reductions from labour whatsoever...the unions otoh well aware.

Two schools in Edinburgh have announced consolidations that will result in job losses already.

Furthermore (correct me if I'm wrong) the government are also changing business rates for independent schools, thus increasing the expenditure further. It therefore seems extra disingenuous for the government to make out that the increase is only due to VAT.

That’s correct. Business rates are not insubstantial for many schools. That’s on top of the VAT impact.

Our schools dishwasher is broken so the children are using paper plates. A parent at the school could fix it but he isn't enhanced CRB checked. The world has gone mad.

Well yes because the budget comes from the fees that parents pay.

Yes I'm not sure it comes as a big surprise that if you are paying 24k a year that the school has more money to spend on their kids.

The point is, that you should NEVER tax education and if you agree with doing so, for whatever spurious reason, you in fact don't care about kids education as much as you think you do.

The tories are not contesting this because they know when they get back in in the next 10 years they will have a free pass to add VAT to university fees and nursery fees.

Hands up, I have no skin in this particular game. I do, however care about society and people not exactly like myself.

I speak as a working class person who, most likely, would not be able to afford private school fees.

Am I supposed to not give a shit about families affected by this, merely because those families are quite likely middle/upper class and have more money than I do. Am I supposed to cheer the government and say, "yeah, stick it to the rich bastards". I can't do it. It's mean, spiteful and smacks of class envy. For a start, I fail to see how making slightly wealthier parents poorer benefits anyone else.

Also, isn't this VAT on school fees moving a private education even farther away from less advantaged families. I thought politicians of all persuasions were keen on the "levelling up" of opportunity.

Is taxing the relatively low percentage enjoying a private education really going to do a lot toward funding much for the majority in state schools.

I'm sorry but all I see is hypocrisy. Plenty of those politicians avail themselves of the advantages born out of associations with private schooling. They seem to be attacking their own and falsely claiming it will benefit disadvantaged state school pupils, when the additional revenue will likely never get near a stare provider's budget. Is it really just a tax grab to swell treasury coffers.

The point is, that you should NEVER tax education and if you agree with doing so, for whatever spurious reason, you in fact don't care about kids education as much as you think you do.

How far does that go then? Should teachers salaries be exempt from income tax because 'education should NEVER be taxed'? What about other forms of self-improvement - should gym memberships not be taxed? Driving lessons?

Well, I realise you're being facetious but gym is subsidised for people who need to access a gym for health reasons, and alcohol is taxed in Scotland so yes, we're always trying to use govt to nudge people. Sugar tax, free bike scheme etc.