To be gleeful that most of us were right

[Wranglestar]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/adding-vat-to-private-school-fees-has-had-no-obvious-impact-on-state-sector-applications-390546/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2ATdaVlNkJsbtC-KizuW4Fw41obnpvezxnFv4IAFwzJPHXmU90Awr5eqAaem9tMIsn9I0vHSC4jrdYONIA#0rd9makyd4264nstc4us9j77yk5kaoswtLondon Economic

And that private schools has had no impact on state school places. The rich have simply - paid more. Excellent news!

yep, hypocrisy. Too many rich Labour donors and peers making money from private health companies.

Public opinion hasn't been canvassed on either VAT on private schools or private health companies.

@sunbum "Public opinion hasn't been canvassed on either VAT on private schools or private health companies"

I was interested in whether this was true, so have just looked it up for the thread readers - images and links here:
YouGov survey 4 August 2025, support for VAT on private healthcare: Would you support or oppose charging VAT on private healthcare services? | Daily Question

YouGov survey tracker, support for removing tax exemptions for private schools, asked recurrently June 2019-4 August 2025: Should UK private schools be exempt from tax?

Other polling companies will have polled on this too.

31 and 42%? Hardly compelling. Not to mention the fact the private helthcare is something that the entire electorate might want to use wheras private education only applies to parents who at the last census madeup only 42% of the populations. Even if it was a compelling differencein support level, doesn't change the hypocrisy of applying VAT to one system that allows you to opt out of state provision, and not the other.

@sunbum for me the tracker looks like pretty solid support for removing the exemption. Sorry! I was surprised support for keeping it was so low.

The public do seem to feel differently about the two cases, which may be part of the reason why they are treated differently.

Yes and who were the sample? Was this when Labour were still pretending the money was going to state schools?
I wonder now £0 is going to state schools and Labour aren't improving state education, in fact making it worse, whether the responses would be the same?

The question “should UK private schools be exempt from tax?” is a ridiculous one, and misleading at best.

The VAT levied is a tax on those paying the fees, not on the schools themselves. Private schools have always paid input VAT, which they couldn’t reclaim, and those schools run as businesses for profit were already subject to the applicable taxes. This is the problem. Too many (including many in government) don’t understand the most simple of tax laws. They don’t understand that schools were already paying tax. This government have mislead the electorate on this.

ETA
The question also refers to charitable status. This is entirely separate from the VAT issue and many schools are not registered charities. Too many people don’t understand this.

Looking at how stable those percentages are over a six-year period - yes, I would expect the responses to be roughly the same.

We could revisit this every few months and see?

The sample is an online panel weighted to be representative of the population. YouGov has a good reputation. Details here: Methodology | YouGov

But the question is misleading. It suggests that private schools were previously exempt from tax which is simply untrue. The figures would likely be very different if those expressing their views actually understand the tax position.

They weren’t paying business rates most of them, and the ‘charity’ status many have is an absolute joke.
So no, they weren’t paying f proper tax. and as for Vat, that was feels over due just to bandage out all of the other tax dodges private schools have managed over the years.

This is what Civitas found via Deltapoll in January 2024, in a survey part-funded by a consortium of independent schools representatives.

On tax, attitudes look roughly similar. The full report is here: Independent schools: What does the public think?

They weren’t paying business rates most of them

This is factually incorrect and precisely what I mean. Too many people don’t understand the very basics. Around half of private schools are not charities and always paid business rates. Those which are charities were also paying business rates, albeit at a reduced rate.

What other “tax dodges” are you referring to?

There absolutely is evidence.

You can set up your tax system in order to:

a) raise money to spend on public services or
b). you can use the tax system to bring down those who earn more than you and your are jealous of to make you feel better.

We are supposed to be doing b and Rachel Reeves is on the whole quite good at this. This policy is a bit of both. It’s insanely popular as people are thinking b, but it raises very little if anything.

The public needs to get the idea that a) is best for them, rather than having their heads turned by b) when the ideas spouted by the likes of the economically illiterate Greens would be massively damaging to the UK economy and result in us all being much poorer (see wealth tax, VAT on financial services, UBI).

I'm one of those that has remortgaged to keep my kids in the private provision they ended up in after being failed by state. I have no savings and live month to month. If and when the government can show me concrete examples of an educational benefit to the state education system, as in an actual named teacher who wouldn't otherwise have been trained or employed, or an SEN centre better resourced for instance, as a direct result of the revenue raised by this, then I'll concede the argument. Until then, all I can see is actual real kids, my kids' friends, who have had to leave their schools, some mid GCSE.
Excellent points above about what charitable status actually means and the reality about taxes already paid. It's quite scary how confident so many posters are in their ignorance when posting their opinion on this.

‘The question “should UK private schools be exempt from tax?”’

er, that’s easy - 100% no!

Of course not! And too many still avoiding a lot of tax via ‘charity’ status

@MyKhakiPanda maybe you should read some of the very well informed posts on here about the nature of the tax that private schools pay and what charitable status actually means. After 38 pages, there have been quite a few.

The tax system isn’t progressive. Are you having a laugh? Someone on £150k earns 6 times as much as someone on minimum wage and pays 21 times as much tax. How fucking progressive do you want?!!!

It’s clear you don’t understand the situation regarding private schools and tax. You’ve already shown that by stating, incorrectly, that most private schools didn’t pay business rates.

The question “should UK private schools be exempt from tax?”’
er, that’s easy - 100% no

The question is a pointless one. UK private schools were not “exempt from tax” even before the recent changes.

@Boohoo76 Well, it can't be rebalanced much more towards the poor, can it? - given how high rents are, and how high the cost of living is.

The personal allowance was £12,570 in April 2021. Adjusting for inflation, it should be about £15,500 now. But it hasn't been adjusted - which is all the more painful for those on low incomes for whom every penny counts. It's equivalent to a tax increase.

We do need a broader tax base - but for that we need investment in infrastructure to unlock productivity. Council tax is hideously regressive, and wealth more broadly is severely undertaxed.

I know from my own experience that it's tough when you're caught by major economic forces after working hard and having a particular vision for your family's future.

But those on £150k are still very fortunate in this society, and are more able to cope with an increase in tax than those paid considerably less - especially if that tax increase is in the form of a removal of a tax exemption on consumption.

For most people who chose private schools for their children, it was a choice rather than a necessity. And they won't be paying school fees for ever.

That's increasingly not the case. Outside of the SE, with lower housing costs, one child in private school is doable on one graduate salary, two with two and so on. Yes it's more than the UK average but it's perfectly within the realms of "ordinary working people". I'm a teacher. An awful lot, far more than is acknowledged, are sending their kids to small, shabby, not famous private schools and not academically selective ones, because the smaller, quieter, more individual atmosphere allows for their ADHD or autism to be managed without the need for specialist intervention. Those are the kids who are being actively harmed by this policy. It's inconvenient but true.

The economy suffers when tax changes regularly. Businesses like certainty in the tax landscape prior to investing, and if we want the populace to be responsible with their finances we have a duty to give them some certainly over tax too.

So I ask, how much is enough? How much income tax do you think is reasonable for a top rate taxpayer to pay? How much do they get to keep from their salary?

They deserve to know the answers. Just nod it seems that whenever Rachel Reeves is a big skint she taps up the same people every time. If she thought the top income tax rate was fair before, why is she upping it? If it was fair before and you need more money, ask everyone to chip in, because every plans their finances for the money they have budgeted for, and the government keeps taking more of that budget.

@RhaenysRocks I just doubt this is so very common among the non-affluent, looking at the fee schedules of the less selective private schools where I live. Fees have increased by so much more than salaries over the past 25-30 years.

The vast majority of children with ADHD and ASD are in the state sector, and their parents are also making sacrifices they hadn't bargained for to ensure they do well, in all sorts of ways. And those families are also struggling with prices going up, wages staying low, and support being generally scarce.

The defence spending target is a huge game-changer and the whole of society is going to feel it. And it has to be funded. This is the world we live in now.

‘For most people who chose private schools for their children, it was a choice rather than a necessity. And they won't be paying school fees for ever.’

Exactly. Although plenty seem able to convince themselves that it is a necessity.

If sales tax on education is such a positive thing why aren’t the rest of the World doing it?! It’s barely generating any money and was brought in by this Government to stick two fingers up at the rich and manipulate a class war. The thing is, the actual rich parents haven’t paid it. They paid years of fees upfront to avoid it and the most elite schools have even bigger cash reserves because of it. It’s impacting the smaller, less elite schools where parents pay fees monthly. They are the ones that are closing and they often have a high number of SEN pupils whose parents have sought sanctuary from a state system that failed them miserably. Why are some people on this thread celebrating that?

I gave the £150k example because someone argued that our tax system is not progressive. It bloody is. What isn’t progressive, is VAT on school fees as it doesn’t take into account ability to pay. Also, even in the highest income decile, more than half of children are state school educated but they aren’t being asked to pay more.

As for council tax, that’s a difficult one. There are some places in London where people are paying relatively low amounts when compared to other areas. However, it doesn’t mean that the occupiers of those homes can easily pay more. They are already paying much higher mortgages or rent and childcare fees. Plus many will have paid huge sums in stamp duty unlike people in cheaper areas.

And as for people on high incomes being more able to cope, it’s not as straight forward as you think. I work with a couple of single mums on £100k and once they have paid their mortgage/rent, childcare fees and travel costs, there is not much left for other bills, food, clothes for kids etc. They are living month to month. I have friends on much lower incomes in cheaper areas, who have more disposable income.