Council spends £8000pa on a taxi due to VAT on private schools

[Iwishicouldflyhigh]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14403627/Labours-VAT-raid-teenage-girl-private-school-council-fund-8-000-taxi-bill.html

So now a place is being taken up in an overscribed school, a 15 year old has had her eduction severely disrupted and the local council has 8k less in the pot.

Well done Labour!!! One of many stories, i'm sure and so predictable.

Because it is confidential information about a child. 🤦‍♀️

But we know the whole case apart from why they rejected the transport application twice ? They could say ‘exceptional circumstances’ for example without stating the exact nature of those but as it stands it’s very unusual as the criteria is either met or not and LA’s will usually grant the transport request if the criteria are met ?

They would make a statement about the process they follow without giving away any personal information. No mention of them explaining anything or even being contacted though which is....interesting.

It's funny, because all the name-calling and saying people are stupid for a different opinion has come from the people who hate paying tax.

If I hear 'politics of envy' or 'spite' again I'll scream.

They don't do irony it seems.

Actually a lot of us are state school parents.

Lots of us have SEN children and were grateful that a lot of people were reducing the burden on the state.

Now getting an EHCP or any help in school is going to be massively more difficult.

Others are concerned that there is going to be hugely more competition this year for good 6th form places.

This policy is spiteful and very much the politics of envy - please feel free to scream away.

Those two quantities are unrelated.

Imagine you go the pub wanting to buy a coke which used to cost £1.75. Unfortunately it's now gone up to £2.50 and you have only £2 in your pocket. There's nothing cheaper available in the pub apart from tap water which is free.

You decide you may as well give the £2 to a beggar and have a free tap water.

This is effectively the situation.

The fact that the coke has only gone up by 75p and you actually have £2 is irrelevant.

But private school parents already pay tax - bloody loads of it. This is an extra tax being applied to a specific sector of society. It is, by definition, politics of envy and spite.

If Labour wanted to tax wealthy people or those with “the broadest shoulders” they should have taxed wealth or income. Not education. It’s utter stupidity. It’s like taxing dog owners to raise money to repair potholes and non-dog owners saying “well if you can afford a dog you can afford to fix the roads, you probably should have seen this coming, what do you mean you can’t afford £4k extra a year who else is going to fix the potholes?” Insanity.

What statement could they make that doesn’t reveal something about the family? ‘Exceptional circumstances’ reveals there were exceptional circumstances and we have no right to know that. Statements about criteria being met is saying they met the criteria which again is personal information. At best the could simply say ‘our transport policy and appeals route are available to all parents’.

We might like to know more but that doesn’t give us the right to do so.

‘Exceptional circumstances’ doesn’t give any personal identifying information as it covers so much. It would however give clarification to a case that the family themselves want to make public.

The implications of VAT on private school was never thought through, especially at a time when States schools are under pressure for capacity and teachers. I also don't get how the free school transport became a thing it just drives up the cost of council tax. A neighbours kids gets a paid for taxis to school and back when they have a parent at home who can take them.

Councils enforce transport policies in odd ways. When our children were at primary, we had to move 7 miles away from their school due to circumstances beyond our control, although only 100 metres out of catchment (rural area). We weren’t entitled to free transport on the school bus because we had moved, however the catchment school for the new house was full and if we had moved from a completely different area and wanted a school place would have been given a place at their existing school and free transport. The council told us that the only way we could get transport was to apply for places at the catchment school and get turned down. We thought that seemed like a waste of everyone’s time and money and so continued to drive our children to school, following the half empty bus most days.

The issue isn’t that ‘privileged people’ are shocked that they aren’t getting special treatment, the issue seems to be that other people are shocked that the ‘privileged people’ are making full use of the rights to which they are entitled and haven’t been using previously. I thought they were publicising it to show how absurd the situation is. It is a short term issue but other issues will arise as Labour rushed their policy through without due consideration.

Free transport has always been “a thing” in rural areas, why should a farmer have to pay (bus or fuel) to get his children to school when those living in towns don’t. I am sure that most people living in rural areas would prefer to have schools in walking distance but that is a less cost effective option for councils than busing children into towns.

At first the mother (an NHS nurse?) changed her job to night shift and then had ti get up to drive the girl but that was not going to work longer term I think the Telegraph said.

Anyway Labour can change the law even if it means no benefit to the state of course - Governments often change laws in ways that cost everyone more money but they decide morally that is what they want to do so I certainly do not think labour has to justify every police simply on money grounds; but I don't think the law change is legal and I hope the litigation is won against the state in April.

If we are all in this together why not give every parent child benefit which used to be the case when I had my 5 children until the law changed and it was withdrawn from higher earners. If people don't also take out of a system then they don't support it and that does not always benefit the state. If we all pay in and take out eg everyone gets the 30 fre ehours from 9 months, just just the less well off, then it is more of a universal system and the 10% of people on £4200 a month after tax that puts them into the top 10% who pay the highest tax burden in 70 years might be happy to work hard and pay tax rather than work less.

@Burnoutforever "‘Exceptional circumstances’ doesn’t give any personal identifying information as it covers so much. It would however give clarification to a case that the family themselves want to make public"

How would it give clarification?

I can’t believe this thread has gone on so long, so many people claiming it’s an unfair tax. How is it unfair? It’s a tax on a product that you buy why should you be exempt?

It’s extremely unusual for an LA to reject a transport request twice as you either meet the criteria or you don’t ? LA’s usually grant automatically those who meet criteria. It’s also unclear if a closer place was offered and rejected ? If public funds are being used and the family are making this very public surely it’s right for both sides to have commented as we are just getting one side of the story which is riddled with holes

You don't pay tax on children's clothes - that's also a product you buy. Do you think people should pay tax on children's clothes? Maybe we could add VAT onto those as well?

Nonsense. They haven't followed the usual admissions process, have brow beaten the council into paying for transport, roped in their MP and embarrassed their child online. This is a manipulative half story and nobody should take any notice of it.

The whole premise of a VAT on education is that it is better to strive less and use public services instead. People are being incentivised to make that choice by the Government. So if one family makes that choice, there should hardly be outrage about it. It is exactly what they have been told to do, indirectly. Use state education, do the right thing and claim what you are entitled to.
Too many people have been paying too much tax and not claiming enough back from the state. As a result, their wages got higher and those wages of others were kept low and others were incentived to work less hours and claim universal credit top ups.
This is a whole rejigging of society. Everyone needs to pay more tax and contribute more who is able-bodied and aim to work at least 4 days a week. Wages should become more equal and tax rates and contributions into the pot should also become more equal. Then there will be less envy all round.

This is why I’d be very interested to see a statement from the LA

Exactly! They are completely taking the piss

They aren’t. They had to remove their child from their school of choice due to Labour policy. They are now making use of state education. There were no places in schools closer to them so they are entitled to free transport. This right isn’t removed from you just because you once paid for your child’s education (or a fancy holiday or an expensive car).

I agree with Bustopher.

Too much is being made of this, it's a pity it got into the HateMail.