Would Labour voters be upset if joining the EU meant they could no longer tax children’s education?

[Blarneyspoco]

Taxing children’s education is banned as part of EU membership. If the U.K. rejoined the EU, would Labour supporters be upset that they can no longer levy the tax or would it be seen as a necessary compromise.

Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t everyone get a vote ? And if you think being poor is all about not wanting wealthier people to have nice things you’re woefully out of touch.

No the OP does not. I think it’s too early to tell. Labour put the break even at 10% movement from independent to state, we’re not there yet. The reason I asked if it would change people’s minds is that I get the impression the attraction of this policy is the punitive element affecting a group of children seen as ‘other’.

I had a feeling the word ‘voluntary’ would have a different meaning depending on if it was a tax you pay or not.

Yes the service is children’s education, the OPs point is why do people want to apply it to children’s education?
And yes I’m aware that there are tax payer funded education services.

It’s ok because everyone can kick the op on mn instead and no one cares that state hasn’t improved due to a pointless and damaging tax.

One would hope children’s education is seen slightly different to alcohol and tobacco, alas not to a lot of people.

Well if you choose not to work, you don't pay income tax.

Returning to the muddies waters, the taxes on petrol, tobacco and alcohol and sugar are voluntary taxes. So so is the one on some private education.

'Most state schools are so shit they aren't a viable choice for anyone with anyone sense.'

Your assertion doesn't make any sense. In the most recently published PISA tables, the principle source of information globally on the comparative educational achievement of pupils in 91 countries, Britain is in the top 10. That doesn't sound anything like a national disgrace.

Nor does it explain how around 50% of young people manage to go to university, complete their degree, and sit finals, despite barely being able to write their own name.

As 93% of pupils are educated in the state sector, you have insulted thousands of parents whose children are being educated there. Most of them have no choice, because private education is out of reach for them financially.

It doesn’t. Income tax isn’t voluntary. If you meet the thresholds set for payment then you pay it. Meeting the thresholds for VAT is voluntary - if you don’t want to pay it, you don’t take up the service.

Workers need petrol to get to with or to transport goods and equipment.
There is nothing g voluntary about paying tax on petrol.

Alcohol addiction takes the voluntary out of paying tax for it.

Sugar is an important preserving agent and energy source.

None of this is voluntary use.

No need to make it even more expensive for others

Therein lies an irony. Advocates of parental choice in education would be shouting the loudest if there were legislation to outlaw private schools. Currently, there is choice, but it costs more than some parents would like it to or can afford.

I definitely do not think it was to “upset parents and children”. A tiny minority of parents and children. I think it was for the same reason governments always levy taxes / remove exemptions: to attempt to raise revenue.

I just find the whining over it ridiculous when private education is completely optional. If all schools were private then I may have a different view.

Sugar, alcohol and tobacco are sin taxes that are designed to nudge behaviour and also happen to generate tax revenue in most cases.

Paying for a non state education rather than taking the tax payer funded option is not a sin, but I think some people see it that way. I surely don’t have to go into the benefits of parents being able to give their children the most suitable education for everyone in society? That argument has long been settled.

When you nudge people away from drinking or smoking, you also save money on the NHS in the long term and they are more likely to be net tax contributors and have less social issues.. When you nudge people away from the independent education,the tax payer then funds their education at £8.5k a year. When you nudge chijdren into an unsuitable tax payer funded option, SEN/bullying etc then long term you are likely to cost the tax payer more money in NHS or being a net tax recipient.

Children’s education is not smoking, its why it’s treated differently,

Are you comparing living without an income to living without private school?

Is that an actual comparison you think makes sense?

And has it done that? Has it actually improved state education? Because there’s no change here.

That was the intent. I answered the question.

But it appears it has raised revenue: https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/labours-private-school-tax-hike-is-set-to-raise-more-money-than-expected-399462/

Of course any tax levy will see people wish to try and avoid. I don’t see why this is different. But as private schools is completely optional I care about it as much as I do VAT on Louis Vuitton handbags.

The intent but the outcome hasn’t happened? It was actually meant to improve state.

If that was always for the birds then the op has a point, it’s was political posturing without actually fulfilling the pledge.

It has raised revenue so the intent happened.

There is nothing g voluntary about paying tax on petrol.

Unless you choose to buy an EV of course.

Or cycle, or take public transport

When you nudge people away from drinking or smoking, you also save money on the NHS in the long term and they are more likely to be net tax contributors and have less social issues..

That was the bollocks spun at the time.

The problem is that ex (and non/never) smokers living longer has blown a hole in the benefits budget as the live longer into far more expensive needs.

When they popped their clogs earlier and removed the need to pay a pension for 30 years after retiring, they were contributors.

If you wanted honesty, then the government should have said that the smoking ban would need to be covered with extra taxes from somewhere.

Oh, and to add to Sanchez rolling the dice on a snap election (good luck with that, fella), Bolsanaro Jnr just won 47% of the first round in Brazil.

Go on, Andy - do it. Call an early GE!

The pledge was 6,500 teachers for state. Is anyone in state seeing the benefit yet? No change here.

Not everyone can afford an EV. Not everyone has access to public transport. Fuel duty is way too high. We need to bring the costs of essentials down down down