If Labour win... are your DCs coming out of Private Education?

[MrsJamesMathews]

Sitting here doing some maths.

It's not looking great.

With increased corporation tax and VAT on school fees, I think we'll be having some very awkward conversations with our DCs schools on Friday.

Anyone else worried?

I agree foxpants, the IFS thinks unemployment and hours cuts are the likely result of the min wage and corporation tax increases - you don't have to be a mean old Tory to not like Corbyn's manifesto.

As I've money spent on free tuition could've been much better spent with targeted free tuition for nurses and spend the rest on earlier education. This expansion of what the state does is all wrong and I don't like cuts either.

Somerville - I think a lot of the services I've mentioned have become more professional in recent years and £12/hour for cleaning and £200/day for gardening work (hedge cutting etc, not just mowing lawns) would be more than minimum wage.
I don't know what you mean by 'not having seen it' happen in practice - I think it will become quite clear, given time - perhaps it doesn't get fully captured in official statistics as perhaps not every self-employed person is declaring as much of their work as they should?

Funnily enough I vaguely remember there being an official term for this effect of raising taxes, and why it never generates as much net revenue as you'd expect because revenues from further down the scale fall and benefits have to rise. This was from my degree in Economics - but that WAS 30 years ago!

The Laffer Curve - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve.

The problem with this type of socialist agenda is that it assumes that people do not change their behaviour, which time and time again, history has shown that they do.

I'm wondering where the job creation is supposed to come from in Corbyn's plan - I see where the job destruction comes in but not what firms are supposed to be excited about.

What I meant by that Jng is that in countries that have a long-term trickle-down agenda, I see the rich getting richer. But not the poor getting richer too. In fact the poor of this country have got notably poorer over the past few years. And because many of my friends are now fellow wids and those with life limiting illnesses we made friends with through Dh's treatment, I see that. If I was still living my old life, before my first husband got ill, maybe I wouldn't. I used to believe that there was a safety net for people who experienced a life changing calamity, and over the past few years I've seen how quickly and severely that is being ripped away.
So I don't want 5 more years of a Tory government right now. I really, really, fear for the poorest in our society if that happens. Those who can't put their kids in private school when the local school can't meet their needs. Those who can't go private when their health is suffering. Those who are disabled or dying and can't work and yet have their benefits cancelled after an assessment.

This is what most people just don't seem to understand - if you tax the so-called 'top' too much it inevitably impacts on the lower end of the labour market.

Know your place plebs.

We are higher rate taxpayers, and we are happy to pay more tax.

Yes, but my problem is that JC's agenda doesn't solve that and is at risk of making it worse. The real problem is that those with assets - housing, stock market wealth and so on - have seen a huge increase in wealth, while wages have stagnated. Taxing wages more and more (albeit, in this case, indirectly through private school fee rises) does not help that problem.

I didn't agree with the mansion tax at the time, but on reflection, I think it may have been a good idea. It is also why the social care agenda is so misguided - it is taking money away from wage-earners and benefiting those who have significant assets.

JC's policies are in danger of making private schools even more elitist institutions (by definition, 20% more elitist), not getting money for the state sector and doing naff all for the poor - indeed possibly depriving them of job opportunities. The Tories don't have it right, but JC has it spectacularly wrong. Taxes do have to rise, but not in this way.

1% on income tax seems the sanest policy - not pernicious enough to have people fleeing the country, and actually likely to raise revenue for schools, hospitals and so on.

1% on income tax is indeed a great idea and what the Lib Dems are proposing. Unfortunately they haven't had a great campaign

I agree that a tax on wealth (rather than income) would be the most progressive option.

I'd favour higher inheritance tax too.

of course (jumps on soap box) the other thing that rich people were paying for is tuition fees. But not any more in the Corbyn manifesto...

i can't help thinking farron hasn't gone over well - I quite like him and I'd have voted for them if there had been any significant sign from the locals they were going anywhere.

Well I suppose to be fair JC's land tax is the start of a wealth tax - but not sure why just land - surely it should apply to savings etc as well - especially as these are far more liquid than someone just with land

You're determined that we're also going to debate tuition fees aren't you pottered?

I'm pretty convinced that tuition fees are putting off kids from lower-middle income families going to university.

And as we all know the working world is becoming increasingly specialised - for lots of careers now a PhD or even post doc experience are necessary: I don't think my DC's careers will properly start until they're in their late 20's. And I fear that it will put students off from staying for their post grad qualifications with the debt hanging over them.

Plus, with the anti-immigration stance this country has taken, we need to develop home grown talent. And that means a lot of young people going to university. And increasing numbers as we get increased automation/AI's taking over traditional blue collar roles. We need more STEM candidates in industry - particularly tech (my current field, so I know that for sure).

Of course, we could fund more university courses for those on lower and middle incomes, and still have a cut off after which kids of high earners paid them. But they're paid by the young person, not their parents, and that doesn't feel particularly fair to me. I'm open to persuasion though, I'm still thinking about it.

I've enjoyed the debate on this thread and that it hasn't got mean (Monaco mix up notwithstanding ) so thanks all. I'll check back tomorrow as have to go to bed now.

And if that came in, those who pay more for houses in catchment areas would also be paying more tax - presumably that could be directly given to lower performing schools

I'm not sure, but I'm probably going to have to sell the racehorses and fill in the guitar shaped swimming pool. And that farmhouse in the Ardeche is gonna have to go.

Agreed Somerville, but wonder if the key is not all-or-nothing on tuition fees, but fee rebates for STEM subjects. If you want to sit around and discuss Keats, great, but don't expect the state to pay. Might be difficult to implement, but surely a more nuanced approach?

(I studied English, which was enjoyably navel-gazing but probably not worth the state's cash)

Sorry - have gone off-topic....

Somerville the conservative plan for care costs was basically a tax on inheritence. The only people who would have been worse off are the beneficiaries.

it is taking money away from wage-earners and benefiting those who have significant assets.

Good point.

Fox Ah but I studied a humanity for the first decade of my adult life. I changed tack after I had kids - turned my geeky hobby into a business, basically. But I use the analytical skills I learned from a humanity subject every single day, and my post-grad qualification opened doors for me, even though it's in a very different field. As you'll know, in our system it doesn't really matter what ones first degree is in, one specialises afterwards in one way or another (except medicine and the newer, vocational degrees.) People from my course ended up in all sorts of things, from accountancy to teaching, and lots of them went into law. So just because someone doesn't start off in STEM absolutely doesn't mean that they won't end there, and I'm passionate about the importance of learning for its own sake, rather than going in at 18 knowing ones exact path. So I'd love all students be able to access a first degree with only their living costs to pay for, as in most of the rest of Europe.

good morning: yes, yes - all for targeted tuition fee relief for shortage areas, to encourage degrees that have societal benefit OVER the individual benefits.

I could buy the lower-middle line perhaps too - we'd need some research and some expert policy making on tuition fees.

Blanket policies though? No. Not when they have a HUGE price tag and are at the expense of spending on other areas that need it more.

History grad turned IT geek here too...

I agree about learning for its own sake Somerville the only caveat is the quality. I did a history degree at a top 10 university, and it opened doors to consulting and the geek route rolled out before me.

Had I done this at a top 50 university, would the outcome be the same? There's a debate about the less socially useful/less individually remunerative degrees to be had. There are clearly some kids doing degrees that will not benefit them in any tangible way.

I also wonder if the teaching quality can be the same given the numbers these days. When I graduated back in 2000 the numbers were much smaller.

Our dc will remain at independent schools as we can afford the fee increase, if it happens. I wouldn't mind so much if the funds raised were going to improve state education (especially when everyone complains so frequently about all the cuts) but just to provide a free lunch for pupils seems ridiculous, as many can well afford to pay for this themselves. This includes many of our extended family who also have high incomes but have chosen state education for their children

This policy is ideologically driven. It isn't about how much it costs. The idea of using it to fund free primary school meals is just a way of dressing it up so it sounds like it might make sense if you don't look at the detail.

I don't think it has been thought through though, as it would be pretty hard to write down a set of rules that distinguish the sorts of independent schools that Labour despise from other educational charitable foundations. They can't do it on a case by case snob-value basis.

All this free breakfast and lunch stuff is a nonsense. I don't think people are looking for give-aways when there are funding cuts. I'd prefer to pay for meals and ban packed lunches so that no one can tell who gets free school meals because of need.

Found this comment on the Times website from someone who sounds like they know what they are talking about....

"Labour's suggestions on VAT appear to have fallen into the same trap as Michael Gove, writing in The Times recently. School fees are currently exempt from VAT. This means that schools do not charge VAT on their outputs (fees) but can't recover the VAT they are charged on their inputs (expenses). If you make school fees VATable (and you can't do this in any case until the UK is out of Europe, because the VAT exemption is the result of an EC directive), then you also allow private schools to reduce all their standard-rated input costs by 16.7%. Since the VAT system involves paying over (or being repaid) the difference between the VAT you have charged and what you have been charged in an accounting period, you could well end up with a situation where schools with large capital expenditure programmes receive large, regular cash refunds from the taxpayer."

Is this right? Do any of the tax bods know?

this pretty much demonstrates the law of unintended consequences and why labour needs 5 more years in opposition to get these polices right...