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.

No. It has not.

2023
11.9%
2024
14.0%
2025
15.0%
2026 latest
16.4%

You mean billionaires like David Rueben?

NEETs increased from 794,000 (11.6% to 12.0%) in 2023 to 1,012,000 (13.5%) in 2026.

That's not 'remaining steady'.

No it’s not, you’re right.

It depends what you mean by 'minor part', doesn't it? It was far from the main banner on which they got elected. Obviously it attracted attention but, in terms of public finances, it's not a big policy - a quick Google suggests it raised around an additional 0.1% tax (which is actually.a bit more than i would have expected).

If you're concerned with total taxation as a percentage of the economy (which is the least worst simple indicator of 'how much are we taxed'?) it would add around 0.03% to that number. FWIW, the UK's figure tends to sit in the mid 30%, which is materially.less than most of the rest of Europe. It's miles below Scandinavia, and France for example.

Lakshmi Mittal (£30 billion), Shravin Bharti Mittal ($23.3 billion), Nassef Sawiris (£6.8 billion), Guillaume Pousaz ($6.8 billion), John Fredriksen (£9.9 billion/approx. $13 billion), Chris Rokos (£2.5 billion), Michael Platt (£14 billion)

The policy was never about raising money...

It was a flagship Labour policy nonetheless

We’d get around that. Don’t worry. 🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺

It was one of the five main policies.

It was supposed to provide funds for thousands of teachers.

The level of delusion on here is jaw dropping. Do you honestly think that people voted for Labour because they had that policy in their manifesto? It was always marginal in terms of value and interest. Naturally voters were much more concerned with issues that affect them directly like the cost of living crisis and economic growth and the NHS etc. Just how big is your bubble?

So people won’t care if it’s dropped? Probably not given it’s done bugger all for state education as pledged.

Starmer making a big deal on pledges such as the VAT and being hopeless on it is part of why he was ousted anyway.

I understand why you’re trying to distance Labour supporters from this truely repugnant policy, but the fact is it was one of their flagship policies and there’s no denying it. If you’re now saying maybe supporters were misled, then it’s a different story but it’s pointless denying what really happened.

The economy would also be a lot healthier if Labour's increases in NI and minimum wage, and extra regulations hadn't caused a joblessness crisis in the young.

The IFS disagrees with your analysis.
ifs.org.uk/publications/why-has-neet-rate-risen-understanding-trends-and-drivers-using-administrative-data

the UK's figure tends to sit in the mid 30%, which is materially.less than most of the rest of Europe. It's miles below Scandinavia, and France for example.

The average amount of tax paid per person hides the distribution for different income levels though.

Middle and lower earners are taxed far less in the UK than in Europe and higher earners are taxed more than in Europe (including Scandinavia). And get far less back!

This graph shows how the different incomes are taxed in various countries. Look at how our lines compare.

Yes it was plus backed strongly on here. It is a dud though so I can see why some are saying it was a minor policy.

Do you really believe people care that much how other people educate their children? Who knows, maybe some people believed that the VAT would lead to a better state education system for their children and it did factor in their voting (you know, a bit like the Boris Brexit bus and the promise of £gazillions for the NHS). However, that is a very different thing from people voting to harm children who happen to be in private education on account of the decisions of their parents. IRL people are generally nice and not vindictive against children.

Misinformation, even.

You didn't read the VAT threads then?

It has already been explained to you by PP that economically it was of marginal value. I'm not sure what else there is to say as it can't be explained in any more simple terms.

I think that 20% on education was a terrible decision by Labour tbh.

Yes I saw some of them.

Why do you need to ‘explain this’ I know it’s a dud for revenue already. It was obvious it would be.

Plenty believed Labour’s claims about thousands of teachers through. Which was odd. But if you’re now admitting that has failed then ‘explain’ away.

On Private education.

I agree with you, but yet here we are with the only children’s education tax in Europe so quite obviously some people do care that much how people educate their children. Like I say, I understand why you’re trying to distance Labour supporters from this policy, but it was driven by Labour supporters and there’s no denying it. If you are saying people were misled by the rhetoric then it’s a different conversation and I’d also agree with you there.

And we've already explained that it wasn't about economic value.

Labour knew the official estimate of how many children would move to state was too low - internal communications have come out that say so.

And so it has proved. They allowed for 37,000 pupils moving over 5 years: we're already at 30,000 after 2 years. It's looking reasonably likely that we'll hit the 10% mark (57,000 children) which means the tax will actually cost money.

You might not want to believe that they were deliberately harming children for no reason, but I'm afraid it is reality.