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?

Boris
Rishi
Keir

It's not sexist. It's just a way of emphasising that Rachel Reeves has been overpromoted. You've got to have some chutzpah putting yourself up for Chancellor when you've lied on your CV and only worked in customer complaints (in fact, "Rachel from accounts" is actually complimentary in view of the truth).

It's a shame that.she couldn't really carry off the trick on the nation really; her inexperience.has become all too plain.

People do get up in arms on Labour politicians' nick names but all for it for others

The inconsistency is amusing. One rule for thee and another for me..twas ever thus!

I'm not a fan of Reeves but stupid labelling like that speaks volumes about the lack of intelligence of the labeller. It's a shame they are incapable of finding more eloquent ways of addressing her shortcomings.

It says absolutely nothing about the intelligence of the "labeller".

Personally I do try not to police other people's speech. It's a distraction and wastes time. And one also has to be squeaky clean ones self....unless one is happy to be labelled a hypocrite. You may of course disagree.

I am free to make up my own mind what I believe it says about the labeller, thank you. Lazy and tired says it all really.

Well I think you are rather rude, insulting people on this thread. So perhaps keep those thoughts to yourself.

Didn't realise I was in the virtual company of such sensitive flowers. I'll do what I want with my thoughts and I don't give a hoot what you think.

So apply that logic to the politicians you keep defending so vociferously. And they aren't even on this thread!!

Your posts on this thread alone have defended the expression of visceral hatred of a person (politician) as well as toe curling misogyny directed at others. If I happen to have offended you or others by calling that out, I will not be losing any sleep over it.

There is no denying this fundamental hypocrisy though: two women who themselves have benefitted from the most elite education of all- being the PPE course at Oxford university- supposedly standing up for VAT on private school fees; all whilst the only reason they got the power and jobs they are now in, is due to that very elite education they benefitted from, and not due to them reaching any real knowledge/expertise in the fields they now have so much power over. Nor any fundamental competency from what we have seen so far?

Elite forms of education are just a stepping stone, the mere beginning, they appear not to signify much more than that.

I am not a fan of either of them @Araminta1003 and think they are out of their depth but there is a bit of a disconnect in what you say as they only benefited from elite education at tertiary level. They went from state schools to Oxbridge and that is still possible. Oxbridge is indeed more accessible now with the success of their outreach programmes. However I agree entirely that it rings hypocritical to say one is against elite education in general if you yourself have benefitted from one. I agree that elite forms of education are just a springboard and not all who have had do or should go on to greatness. It takes much more besides.

https://www.qebarnet.co.uk/queen-elizabeths-global-schools/

London state school goes global. I am sure Bridget Phillipson loves that one.

“Any revenues received from the Global Schools initiative will be invested into the School here in Barnet, thus further improving educational opportunities within the state sector.”

Your posts on this thread alone have been toe curling in their rudeness directed at others about their intelligence.. I won't be losing any.sleep over calling that out.

The left always dish it out but can't take it. It's very funny.

I'm not even left wing. Think again. PS Full stops come at the end of sentences.

Don't police other people remember. I thought you were going to try and concentrate on the standard of content of your own posts?

I think that's all in your head. Like most things seem to be judging from your posts.

Missing the point, but there's is no VAT on Education. There's VAT on private schools.

No the VAT isn't on schools, they already pay VAT. The tax on the purchase of education ie an education tax, is on parents.
Not to re-hash the whole thread but maybe RTFT and realise how you are wrong!
Just as a tip here is contributions to the state of parents using independent schools Vs state schools:
Who really funds public services?
£35k salary (2 kids in state school) -£9.6k net loss
£35k salary (2 kids in private school) +£5.4k net benefit
£60k salary (state school) -£6.4k
£60k salary (private school) +£9.3k
£110k salary (state school) +£21.3k
£110k salary (private school) +£36.3k

The more you earn, the more you fund, especially if you opt out of state services. And yet, according to Labour ideology, those using Independent Schools are the bad guys getting a made-up tax break?

Just a suggestion. You look like you needed some help with your posting style?

Tax breaks being taken away from some of the wealthiest people really are the least of this country’s problems right now

And I know someone will come along any moment to start shouting - not a tax break! Or we pay twice for education etc!
Butbthat really is a personal lifestyle choice

Just as a tip here is contributions to the state of parents using independent schools Vs state schools:

Who really funds public services?

£35k salary (2 kids in state school) -£9.6k net loss
£35k salary (2 kids in private school) +£5.4k net benefit
£60k salary (state school) -£6.4k
£60k salary (private school) +£9.3k
£110k salary (state school) +£21.3k
£110k salary (private school) +£36.3k

The more you earn, the more you fund, especially if you opt out of state services. And yet, according to Labour ideology, those using Independent Schools are the bad guys getting a made-up tax break?

There always seems to be a lack of awareness in these threads about how tax works.
I have many childless friends, who will remain childless, paying tax that will go toward the education of children in the U.K.. thanks god they aren’t always bitching about that or demanding refunds!