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.

Labour lied.

Like every government that has been and will be.

Weather to follow.

Absolutely!

Even though if you live in a city in this country you naturally come to know loads of people who grew up under communism - but people don’t make friends and ask questions of their neighbours, fellow school parents, work colleagues etc it seems.

Yes, because we have a state system that all children can access.

This is a very good point.

A lot of PS parents are professional left liberal middle classes, Labour or LibDems voters. Your very wealthy, old money profile doesn't apply to PS population anymore, maybe Eton, but majority are just successful professionals.

So Labour def lost these votes.

So nothing about ring fencing?

Implied, I think, by 'to invest in our state schools'.

It's not really "simply because the state also provides an alternative".

It's true that the tax-payer-funded alternative does make taxing education less economically sensible than taxing other things - because if the person then chooses not to buy education then the state is on the hook for £8k per child per year. Whereas if I decide not to buy chocolate because it's got too expensive for me, the state is no worse off.

But really, the argument is the other way round. The state provides an alternative because educating children is so important for society as a whole.

And giving a better education to children is also better for society as a whole. That's why there's always pressure for more education funding.

You might argue that private education isn't better than state education... but actually that weakens your argument. Why would you think that parents should be stiffed for £thousands for choosing to pay for a worse education themselves, when that saves the state £8k per year?

Then you get to the consequences. It's pretty evident from both economics and history that taxing something reduces how much is bought. That's why we tax cigarettes and alcohol.

So, if you follow those steps, you can see that taxing the 'better' education -> less of 'the better' education -> worse for society.

Here you go

It was also featured prominently as one of Labour’s foundational "First Steps for Change" campaign pillars:1, 2]
"Recruit 6,500 new teachers in key subjects to set children up for life, work and the future, paid for by ending tax breaks for private schools." [1]

Maybe not. The numbers aren't high enough to make much of a difference, especially with so much shifting between parties going on.

It's obviously worse for the individual child than it is for society generally. They only get one education, which creates the person they become. Whereas the effect is diluted for everyone else.

But nonetheless, it's worse for everyone.

The policy is obviously lefty nonsense, it’s the type of thing to be expected and won’t last long. But when it’s implemented half way through an academic year, when the education secretary is dividing British children into groups of ‘ours’ and ‘not ours’ and the chancellor of the exchequer is smirking about schools closing then I’d say we’re in new territory. Just my thoughts

Vitriol against strivers who've worked hard and saved for children's education just to be artificially told it's 20% more expensive now

Well you did just say that your support the policy because you want those who have the most to pay more, and I've just shown you that that isn't what's happening, so you haven't really answered my question.

Also, the state system isn't "fair" in that schools in some areas are better than others, which puts house prices up in those areas making them less accessible to people with less money.

As well as the fact that the state insists on teaching ideologies that some parents don't want their kids to be taught.

60% of income tax comes from the top 10% taxpayers.

If they change their behaviour, it will matter.

And I agree that attacking our children crosses a line which you can never come back from. And it's not hyperbole: it's very much an attack. Mothers know when their children are attacked - you'll never gaslight us otherwise.

It shouldn't be VATed at all..pure envy from the have nots

Anyone who can even consider paying for private education is privileged in relative terms. That's fair enough for me.

The state system isn't fair, but the relationship between house prices and school quality is also about the cultural capital the middle classes bring and the impact that has on what schools do, as well as the in-built advantage it gives children. It's also unfair that some parents can afford private tutors while others can't, including for 11+.

The ideologies issue is tricky. The so-called 'woke' tide is turning, which may bring more sobriety to PSHE or whatever it's called now. But school teaching can be countered by conversations at home, which goes some way to addressing it.

We may be at cross purposes. My point is that some Labour votes being lost from a sub-set of 7% of parents, when Labour's vote share also comes from parents with children in state schools, parents whose offspring are adult, and young adults without children, is not going to make the difference between Labour winning the next election or losing it.

Independent schools employee 330k people, there’s 500k to a million parents with children at IS, I guess 1 to 2 million grand parents, countless ex pupils, family friends, local economies depending on schools, parents with children at over subscribed state schools. There is quite a list of affected voters before you get to the people who simply think its a dumb idea.

I think you're right that direct Labour votes lost may not be that significant.

The economic backlash from Labour's policies will hurt their election chances far more. Education VAT is one small part of that.

I absolutely agree about Labour's economic policies overall losing them votes. So far, they have alienated small businesses, farmers, and landlords, with plans for growth very little discussed.

“Voluntary? Could you explain? Schools have to pay I. Whether they pass it on to agents is their choice.
The ISC is hardly going to run a survey asking whether parents are happy to pay increased fees because of VAT being imposed on private schools. Most would answer 'unhappy'. Would the government then say 'We can't have unhappy parents. Let's reverse the policy.'
Even if the questions were about understanding and fairness, the policy would remain unchanged and the government would be right to say 'If you don't like it, move to the state sector. '”

@IdaGlossop - it becomes voluntary, once those who signed up pre VAT, have passed the usual transition points with their children being 4 plus, 11 plus and 16 plus in most areas. Voluntary in the sense that they are now actively choosing to keep their children in the private sector.
If the policy ends up leading to far less demand going forward resulting in a net loss to the taxpayer (of which the Labour Government were warned from the start), then obviously it becomes a dud policy they cannot defend. They won’t be able to defend it if there are no new teachers in state, no universal breakfast clubs and one can prove it has led to a large fall in private pupil numbers over and above the fall in state school pupil numbers (aka accounting for demographic changes).
So ultimately it being successful rests on the private school parents willing to pay it and not use the free state school places they are all entitled to.
If you are forced into a mid year change to a less than ideal school plenty of parents will pay it “temporarily”. Some may even pay it for younger siblings out of a moral prerogative as they did it for older siblings. But there is a price point - if the younger siblings overall education is now running at 50% more (accounting for VAT and recent price rises) even those who are able to pay, may well not.
So out of interest how much did you pay for 2 years and how much would you have to pay if your child were attending this year and next year and what is the overall rise in percentage terms? Because when I look at my local private school the compounded cumulative rises in just a few years due to VAT are staggering.

Indeed. Their languishing at the bottom of the polls is entirely their own making.

Tbf their policies lost them a leader. Sure people are relieved he’s gone now with a new one, let’s see how he goes.

It's a lot of affected people, of whom some will never have voted Labour and would never do so. Focus groups are not bringing up VAT on school fees as a major issue of concern. The trigger issues are the cost of living, immigration, the health service, and defence. Education doesn't get a mention.

Lots of people work hard. How hard you work isn’t some reliable measure of how much money you end up with.

I can afford the VAT increase on private school fees. Does that make the OP, and everyone complaining they can’t, one of the “have nots”? Perhaps they just need to work harder and strive more, following your logic. Or perhaps “envy” is simply a convenient way of dismissing a tax you don’t like.