To be completely shocked by this - Bridget can’t tell us the impact of the government’s VAT on Education?

[Sasskitty]

Bridget Phillipson dodges question on impact of private school tax raid

As parents and schools complain of chaos, Ms Phillipson refuses to spell out details of the assessment made by the department for education

Bridget Phillipson failed to spell out the full impact of the government’s private school VAT raid, dodging the question when asked about the possible implications for special education schools.

While she said the government has “looked at all of the potential impacts”, her answer failed to provide any real detail on the expected consequences.

It comes as parents and schools complain about the implications of the tax raid, which came into force on New Year’s Day and is expected to raise £1.5bn for the Treasury.

YABU - Bridget Phillipson has it all in hand. She just didn’t feel like answering the pesky question. The point is to piss rich people off. Leave Labour alone, they want nothing but erm oh I’m not sure.

YANBU - Phillipson clearly has no idea what the impact of VAT on Education will be. Nor does she really care as long as she’s seen to be punishing those horrible rich people. Or even better (it seems) the not really rich ones just trying to improve the education of their children as the available state schools were not suitable.

https://apple.news/AO7fcmrzuRaik4stLaPQxwA

(sorry paywall but there’s not much more in the article)

PS. I’ve removed the poll tally, no one needs to see real data. Do they?

Again you’re attempting to police who can and cannot post, which is so clearly against the spirit of an opinions board that it hardly bears pointing out.

Not state run ones. But private ones are. The people in those have more than £23,000 and therefore need punishing punishing and made equal with people who have not worked or saved.

Well my belief is that adequate or decent state provision should be available for all essential needs. So when that state provision is available, yes VAT should be charged on those who choose to pay for something they perceive as better.

You can post but it's not unreasonable of people to question your motivation as to why.

And you are rude, added to which you’ve already said you don’t care about what I think. So I clearly need to pay more attention to ensure I don’t engage with your attempts to harangue me. I apologise for failing to do that previously.

Hopefully that has now been cleared up.

What is your plan when the state's money runs out so it cannot afford state provision for everything we.may need. Which may be closer than we hope. Will you then ask people to fund themselves privately?

So then you should be demanding extra tax on everything.
The only place your line of reasoning gets us to is North Korea or East Germeny. Neither of those places are held up as being examples of successful societies.

FYI Labour isn't investing in state education so the gap just keeps on growing.

If you live in a grammar area, the kids who have been able to afford paid tutors all through primary get a superior education to the sink state schools that surround them. Can we tax them too? Or is that kind of selectivism OK in the centre left?

If parents chose not to send their SEN kid into a lions den of super competition because of the impact it would have on their mental health, do you truly believe the sink state schools are the best option for that sensitive child? If that is the "choice" then yes, many parents will work all hours and remortgage to give their child a chance at a decent education, with SEN support.

@ChallahPlaiter - can you please explain why your own DC with SEND are not going to be impacted if a whole lot of additional DC with SEND now also have to join their school? How are you so confident that extra funding that your schools are likely to have to put up (up to 6k) per child won’t lead to other children getting more attention and your children getting less? Why would anyone with DC with SEND anywhere be safe? They are not. More kids in the system will mean less money to go around, for all.

How can “state money” run out?

Well not really but hopefully you can now stop taking umbrage.

This is the money tree argument isn't it? I hope we have got one otherwise there is an IMF bailout I suppose. We've done it before under Labour.

Sorry, I can’t give personal details about my children’s education.
I’ve asked previously for numbers of children with SEN who will be forced to leave their private schools and go into state education. Nobody can provide that. So I’m happy to continue in my belief that the numbers are so low as to be statistically negligible and that any children who do have to move can be easily accommodated. After all, funding for state education is statutory and not dependent on how many actual pupils there are.

Good question.

I guess I’m not the kind of person to describe schools as “sink” so it’s hard for me to answer your questions.

What will you do if the state provision is inadequate for your children's needs?

Is it possible they are going to start means testing all SEND? So all higher tax payers in specialist provision or acquiring additional support will have to contribute? I mean, where is this going? We do need to start asking about next steps.

So you don't think taxing parents using tutors should happen if education is to be taxed?

No wonder the government don't know what they are doing if their supporters can't understand. Or don't "describe schools as "sink" " because it is easier to ignore them.

Let me explain how I would define it: a local state school which achieves under 25% of kids coming out with 5 x GCSEs at grade 5+ and your only choice of state are ones that consistently come bottom of national tables for GCSE results.

I can’t give you a definitive answer to that except to say that I’ll do what I always have, research and generally make my presence felt until my children’s needs are met.
I can only speak for myself.

From this thread (as pointed out by PP) it seems that the argument is that paying for provision of an essential service yourself is a privilege. And that you need to be punished using taxation rather than supported in relieving the tax payer burden.

Private education is obviously the first target. But as mentioned above, this argument if consistent, should been applied by PP to any essential service, care homes and medical care being two good examples that logically should be the next targets. Users are also buying "privilege" as there are perfectly good state run providers.

One of the worst areas of privilege are universities. They buy privilege in life to anyone going and what is worse, can't even be classed as "essential" So they need to be taxed to the hilt, the rich fat cats.

There are no arguments against any of that if you subscribe to the attack on private schools.

That wouldn’t be a useful definition for me because exam results and league tables haven’t necessarily been meaningful for me or for my children’s needs and aspirations.

I guess we’ll never come to terms because I don’t see taxation as a punishment. I see it as a contribution.