Eton in line for £4.8m in windfall from VAT recovery

[HooverIsAlwaysBroken]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/jobs/schools-universities/eton-claim-48m-vat-clause-labour-private-school-tax-law/

i know that many people are fed up by this topic, so feel free to scroll by.

But for those who are supportive of the proposals, even though it has impact on children with SEN and military families…. Are you equally supportive of tax payer money funding swimming pools and boarding houses at the elite schools?

Am I being unreasonable in thinking that this policy should be properly looked into and assessed before implementation?

"They also know that those stories don't have to be particularly robust or accurate" so just like Labour's policies, or Phillipson's posts then?

What’s the new data @twistyizzy ? Out of interest

That’s how VAT works, this was always going to be the case

You’re assuming that 100% of the parents will be paying the VAT, on 100% of the fees. Many parents at the wealthier schools have prepaid fees for several years, so are likely to have avoided the VAT.

Ds is at Private school (not Eton or anything remotely like it) so I DO have skin in the game but I would have no issue with this policy at all if it would actually provide any additional resources for struggling State schools
Its an ill thought out and ineffective policy that may actually cost the Treasury money and is based purely on idealogical not practical grounds.

The calculations have been done, presumably, by looking at the accounts, ie based on actual figures. This is in contrast to the IFS calculations which the government are relying on, which is full of inaccuracies because of ridiculous assumptions. The government are using inaccurate figures to try to justify this ludicrous policy.

And the IFS now say it won't raise what they initially predicted. They are really trying to distance themselves from their own report + the policy.
Luke Sabatier has gone to ground and the head of IFS is leaving. Obviously could be coincidence, but also maybe not

I agree. I could understand it if it was going to raise any money, but it isn’t. It could even end up costing the taxpayer money. Even the IFS have said that the amounts involved are “tiny” and will make no difference to public spending. It disrupts the lives of some children for the sake of ideology and spite.

Not sure what either of those have to do with a comment on newspapers publishing inaccurate stories to generate clicks and engagement tbh.

The post I responded to literally demonstrated why that article was a misleading at best and you've just proved that their readership will do literally anything to avoid challenging the narrative, so thanks I guess.

Do we know that the figures are inaccurate? We know that input VAT can be reclaimed and that a school will able to reclaim VAT on some capital expediture going back years. Are you saying that the story has used incorrect figures from the financial accounts?

will do literally anything to avoid challenging the narrative

The government are not accepting any challenges to their inaccurate figures. Are we only allowed to challenge figures which show the flaws in this policy?

Avoid challenging the narrative sums up Labour well. They refuse to engage, discuss or debate.
We (and many others including MPs, Lords, charities etc) have tried engaging with them. They refuse.
They have dug themselves into a massive hole whereby a policy which is supremely flawed (admitted by the people who wrote it) and will ultimately most likely end up costing the taxpayer money whilst raining zero for state schools is a headline manifesto policy.
Phillipson is pushing it through to save her job, not because it is a sensible policy.

I think that maybe we can rest assured with regards to the IFS report. It seems to have been written by a close friend (best man at wedding) of the minister whose department will implement it. Probably the department will be able to get a lot of extra knowledge on this.

bmmagazine.co.uk/in-business/report-backing-labours-private-school-vat-policy-written-by-ministers-close-friend-raising-concerns/

I mean, this just drives the point home, doesn’t it?

The work from the IFS, an independent research institute specialising in UK taxation and public policy, is 'full of inaccuracies and ridiculous assumptions.' Yet, Telegraph journalist Pieter Snepvangers, with a degree in politics, and looking at the Companies House fillings for one school, is apparently the gold standard for understanding the tax revenue implications of a national policy.

Funny how parties and commentators from across the political spectrum cite the IFS when its findings support their views, but denounce it when they don't. It's almost as if people can't bear to challenge the narrative they want to push....

They should just use ‘we can be pragmatic’ line as they have for other failed policies and drop it

Phillipson is a spiteful liability not fit for the role

@Sailonsilverrgirl

Agree, they kicked away grammar and school for children in non academic areas, leaving that for the wealthy and low doing same kicking low level private schools out of reach.

I would take the report more seriously if it hadn’t been written by a very close friend of the minister whose department will implement it. Maybe it will be great. But can we agree that the optics is terrible?

...should we just do a proper impact study and cost-benefit-analysis of this before implementing it?

Heaven forbid Government would do something quite so sensible. One of the reasons the country is a shitshow is the failure to do a cost-benefit analysis that allowed the disinformation enabling Brexit.

That’s a bit desperate.

Pennycook is the minister responsible for the business rates relief issue for private schools, not the VAT on fees.

Is the relationship between Sibieta and Pennycook also being blamed for the Scottish Government removing business rates relief for private schools in 2022?

Interesting. So Business Matters, owned by Capital Business Media and Richard Alvin—who has ties to Conservative governments, including advisory roles under both Thatcher and Cameron—runs a headline that implies impartiality in the IFS's work.

Yet, when you read the article, there's no evidence of wrongdoing or issues with the author's methods or findings. And those raising these concerns have also nothing to back them up, other than the fact the author and a government minister are friends.

Frankly, accusing a professional researcher of unethical behaviour based on nothing more than a government connection is a bit of a leap and a serious red flag. You have to wonder what the real motivation is to make such claims, especially when there appears to be no plan to take things further.

One sentence did stand out to me though:

"The Conservative Party is expected to use an Opposition Day debate to call for a deferral of the VAT policy until 2028 in areas where state schools are already nearing capacity."

So despite everything, it sounds like not even the Tories actually opposed the policy.

It has been 50 years since Labour first announced they wanted to tax indy schools. The current mess just proves why, as yet, it hasn't been done. Every time Labour looked into it they realised: 1) couldn't be done while we were in the EU or 2) it was too complex and would end up costing more than it brought in.

IFS, an independent research institute specialising in UK taxation and public policy

The claim of being “independent” has been thrown into doubt where this policy is concerned. It was written by, apparently, a close friend of a minister who is in charge of implementing part of this policy.

You clearly haven’t read the report. It’s full of ridiculous assumptions. A GCSE student could have had a bash at writing similar.

Why are supporters of this policy so keen on shutting down any comment which shows that the policy is based on miscalculations?

no evidence of wrongdoing or issues with the author's methods or findings

As one example, the report assumes that parents who withdraw from the private sector will spend every single penny of the money saved on fees on other goods and services taxed at 20% VAT. This simply will not happen. No one with even a tiny bit of economic understanding could think that this will happen. At least part of that money will be put into savings, pensions or spent on foreign holidays, none of which will attract VAT. The methods and assumptions are clearly flawed.

Again, what does any of this have to do with newspapers publishing misleading stories?

If you take a step back for a second, you might realise I've made no comment about this policy whatsoever, merely commented on people's failure to challenge their own or assess the information they're consuming.

Because what's the difference? So Labour can do it but noone else?