Restaurant Takings vs School VAT

[PollyG23]

Restaurant takings are down YTD and most commentators are saying that it is due to NICS and min wage but surely a big factor is due to the VAT on school fees which is eating into middle class discretionary spending- why is no one mentioning this? (Or maybe I just haven’t seen anything?) What else is getting eaten into? (No pun intended)

Maybe employ some critical thinking - do you really believe it’s credible that 1 in 5 people and 1 in 4 men in the country went to private schools? The numbers make no sense.

That’s 7% of the children currently in UK education. Many children don’t attend private school for the full 14 years, with some doing only primary/secondary/sixth form, or a combination. That’s why the figure will be higher when you look at the percentage of people who have attended private school at any stage of their education.

1 in 5 and 1 in 4 men?

I don’t know the overall figures, but it’ll be a fair bit more than the 7% currently using private education, for the reason given above.

It also claims that over a third of 18-25 year olds have attended private schools.

I didn’t write the article, try and calm down a little bit. Yes it is credible that 20% go to independent schools at some point. You are focused on the 5.6% in a given time period when a child’s education in the U.K. lasts 14 years on average. It’s like saying 11% of the population are smokers but 51% have smoked. How can that be you ask? The magic of maths. You’ll be telling me education tax is good idea next 😀. You may find this useful, but if not please take it up with the BBC and not me https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/ztwx4j6

It does seem that private school VAT is the new Brexit - it explains everything.

I don't believe the Ozempic explanation for lower restaurant takings - it suggest that Ozempic is causing people to buy fewer restaurant meals and takeouts. I suspect that people are cutting back on those things in order to fund their weight loss drugs - and doing so obviously helps their weight loss goals.

How condescending. I’m perfectly calm, I’m just pointing out you’ve shared something which patently obviously is daft.
There is absolutely no way 1 in 5 adults in the U.K. went to private schools for even a week or two.

Quite. Despite @FairMindedMaiden ’s ‘magic of maths’ it’s obviously nonsense.

We pay private school fees but we don’t eat out because a 2 course meal with drinks for a family of 4 is usually between £100 and £150. Simple maths tells me that I’m better off using that to buy a week worth of food shopping. It’s not good value.

Thanks for the engagement everyone- always enjoy the MN debate. Looks as if most people think that specific YTD restaurant downturn, although directly in line with the timing of VAT increases, is coincidental and it’s just general COL reasons and due to poor quality food&service and people not being willing to pay the high prices. Noted too that eating out was universally listed as a first-to-go expense and, despite people’s perceptions of private school parents being bottomless pits of money, many are now actively economising & reducing day-to-day spend which would have previously gone directly into the local economy.

There is no logic under the 'only 7%'. That 7% translate into about 800,000 children. Why it is ok for policy makers to be so dismissive about these children? Let's not forget, the impact is on the whole family, then the whole number increases.

However, using the discussion about the number of people being impacted to justify a spiteful policy is totally absurd.

Is 7% a cut off point? What if we are talking about ethnicity percentage? Or LGBTQ+ community percentage? Any subgroup of society that's under 7% deserve to be discarded, like garbage? Should we start talking about double tax all subgroups less than 7%, because all the subgroups don't matter?

Copied from ONS:

"The three largest increases since 2011 were seen in the number of people identifying through:

• "White: Other White" (6.2%, 3.7 million in 2021, up from 4.4%, 2.5 million in 2011)
• "Other ethnic group: Any other ethnic group" (1.6%, 924,000 in 2021, up from 0.6%, 333,000 in 2011)
• "Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African: African" (2.5%, 1.5 million in 2021, up from 1.8%, 990,000 in 2011)."

"The English region with the highest proportion of people who identified with a LGB+ orientation (“gay or lesbian”, “bisexual”, or “other sexual orientation”) was London (4.3%). In London, 2.2% described their sexual orientation as gay or lesbian, 1.5% described their sexual orientation as bisexual, and 0.5% wrote in a different orientation."

Nobody is discarding them. They are entitled to a free at the point of use education just like everyone else. What’s happening is that policy isn’t being driven for that 7%. As is the case for any minority .

Amongst other damaging things, last week Labour were forced to reveal in court:
The treasury predicted 54k students forced into state from independent schools. 10% of independent children is the widely accepted number at which the policy tips over & becomes a net cost to tax payers.

That 100 schools would close as a direct result of the policy.

That the January implementation date would be incredibly disruptive and damaging for children, especially those studying GCSEs and A levels.

That in certain locations the state system would be overwhelmed.

Basically they implemented a policy that would close schools, overwhelm state schools, be harmful to children and the tax payer foots the bill. Anybody still arguing for this policy is quite clearly the sort of person you wouldn’t want anywhere near children and has never been a net tax payer.