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.

yes! Like in communist regimes. By jove you are on to something!

Sarcasm?

You struggle to comprehend people having different political stances than you?

Your DD (child A) state education cost the tax payer approximately £100k and she is now studying at an RG university, an independently educated child (child B) achieving the same outcome would cost the tax payer £0.

Child A £100k, child B £0. Now to someone looking at this objectively based on that information, would they really conclude that child B has somehow been unfairly subsidised by the taxpayer due to some loophole and insist that her education is taxed? Then rush in an immediate tax half through an academic year?. Would it justify the secretary of education referring to child A as ‘our children’ in comparison to Child B as presumably not our children. Would it justify laughing at parents concerns around schools closing?
Would you then possibly begin to doubt that it’s really about improving anybody’s education and maybe just simply ideological spite?

I genuinely can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Because before you said we should bully the rich more.

😁

*Just so anyone who cares knows, nothing I say is sarcastic

PP’s gone the full Lenin on you.

The state child does cost the state though. I don’t get your emoji response. It’s why so few countries do the same tax, and some offer rebates.

It’s difficult for them when grievance politics are challenged with reality.

I know full well that the state educated child is paid for through tax. I have contributed a percentage towards DD's education. The difference is that the cost is spread and paid for by every tax payer.

As has been pointed out before most people don't have £100k plus VAT to spend on their child's education.

I really don't care whether people choose to privately educate their children. It doesn't affect me.

Does that include your ‘wealth’?

How much do you have, so we can make a considered response.

May tried to get alternative "softer" deals through Parliament but the MPs (of all parties) voted against it. Boris went to the public in the 2019 General Election on a promise of "Hard" Brexit and won with an overwhelming majority. So Boris had the voters behind him for the "shittest of shittest deals". Well done and slow hand clap for all the MPs in the early Parliament who kept voting down May's compromise deals!

You are both poorly informed and illogical in your thinking.

My DD was privately educated in sixth form, having achieved all grade 7-9 at GCSE in the state sector. 85% of pupils at her state school achieved grade 4 or higher in both maths and English. She went to a private sixth form because a. a careers adviser suggested she apply for a music scholarship b. she wanted to apply c. we could afford it.

When making the decision that she would move, the 15% of pupils failing to achieve grade 4 at maths and English were not considered by us. It was irrelevant. The reasons parents are prepared to pay school fees for sixth form is that the expense is contained to two years and results are better (private c.49% A and A star, state c.25% A and A*).

My DD achieved A star, A star A (arts), Her then boyfriend A star x 3 (sciences). Both went to Oxbridge. On the basis of this dangerous example of one, I could say I wasted my money. But then, I'm not stupid enough to think grades can be bought, and I understand that As in humanities subjects are harder to achieve than in the sciences.

Around half of private schools are academically selective. About 5% of state schools are (grammar). GCSE results in the state sector are therefore going to be higher than in the private sector.

No reasonable person would write off the state sector as a failure. It fails some pupils. Some schools seriously underperform. Those are the two issues we need to address ie build on and improve what we have.

Formatting

I don't have a grievance about private education. We even considered it for DD. We decided on state because the local state school was good and it meant that we could support DD through university.

Please stop making assumptions about me.

I only challenged you because your terminology about children's education was ambiguous.

Everyone has paid towards your DDs education including the parents of child B, where as you’ve paid nothing towards child’s B education.

Sadly it seems to be encouraging youngsters to start Vaping, many of whom wouldn't have started smoking. Sure I've seen some statistics showing numbers of teens smoking (either vapes or cigarettes) was coming down steadily but is now rising again due to the uptake of vaping. Really not good!

Labour’s tax policies have driven more than $160bn (£120bn) out of the UK since the party came to power.

The collective value of the money and assets owned by people who have either loosened or cut ties with Britain in the past two years has rocketed, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

It shows that £120bn of individual and family fortunes have left the country as tax rises under Labour have taken their toll on the wealthy.

Well done Labour - way to go!

If you choose to remove your child from the state sector why should the taxpayer pay for their education? Your logic is flawed.

It's like asking the tax payer to pay for someone's private healthcare.

Excellent post again @IdaGlossop
The other reason that there is an increase in privately educated sixth formers is that many schools just don't have a sixth form. DD's old school is the only one in our LA that has a sixth form. Fortunately we have two excellent sixth form colleges within reach. As you say, some parents can suck up fees for two years instead of 7.

Thank-you @RampantIvy I should have included your point about some schools not offering post-16.

In my city, all schools in the leafy suburbs have a sixth form and none in the deprived areas. It is a shocking case of failure to tackle disadvantage since the 1980s. Had I not been brought up here, then left for London and watched it decline in the 1980s, I don't think I would understand what Andy Burnham means when he talks about the failure of neo-liberalism.

“Sadly it seems to be encouraging youngsters to start Vaping, many of whom wouldn't have started smoking. Sure I've seen some statistics showing numbers of teens smoking (either vapes or cigarettes) was coming down steadily but is now rising again due to the uptake of vaping. Really not good!”

@Badbadbunny - spot on.
Plus the vaping appears to have a fair amount of unregulated vapes as an added risk factor! And a fair amount of money laundering as well and dodgy this that and the other.
The NHS could have decided to just offer vapes on a prescription bases for ex smokers. The Chinese banned the stuff way earlier than we did and yet we umm and ahh for ages. And then people complain about illegal immigrants and vape shop front to top it all off.

Vaping is full on dodgy business @blossomtoes - and you know it!

I didn’t say the tax payer should pay for child Bs education. I said looking at Child As cost to the tax payer of £100k versus child Bs of £0, how do people arrive at the conclusion that child Bs education should be taxed (close loophole or whatever language these types use) as it’s unfair ? Obviously it’s not really about costs as nobody in the right mind would come to that conclusion.

Everyone has paid towards your DDs education including the parents of child B, where as you’ve paid nothing towards child’s B education.

This ^^ is what you wrote in reply to my post, and that is why I responded as I did.

I am not arguing with you about whether private education should be taxed. I think it was an ill judged move.

I cant see it as being a major issue.

In any event there are a lot of other things that could be done to the alleged detriment of privately run schools. I would suggest that boarding needs to be looked at

Why does anyone pay for private education if there aren’t benefits to doing so? You’re purchasing an additional private service because you believe it offers advantages over the state-funded alternative.

Whether Child A costs the state £100k and Child B costs it £0 doesn’t really answer the question of whether that private service should be exempt from VAT.