So, Keir Starmer is intending to remove charitable status

[BadgerB]

He intends to use the money raised to "shake-up" the State schools.

Has he thought this through - the number of children whose parents just about manage fees, who will then transfer their kids to state schools.

How many? How much will this cost? And how soon can the necessary expansion be effected?

Of course, the really rich will be able to dig deeper into their pockets

@Andante57 but isn’t it because Starmer wants to use the taxation money to put towards improving state schools? Greater good for the greater number philosophy. Not an attack on richer people per se, but a way of creating the best state schools so that the talent of all children recognised? That way we get better doctors, better nurses etc etc. And also in the world of sport if all state schools are better and provide sport in the way private schools do, we are finding talent for the sports like cricket and rugby that are often currently only played to a serious level at private schools - we have then a better, larger pool of talent to draw from meaning we field better international squads and can match eg New Zealand where rugby really is a grass roots sport played seriously in all schools.

You are so deluded. It will barely affect fees but it will hugely affect bursaries and facility sharing.

@nomoneytreehere I have to say I think Boris’s plan to put VAT on fees will be better.

@Bunnycat101 most independent Oreos are not charities so you may find it would make no difference at all

Preps not Oreos

[quote Placido]@nomoneytreehere I have to say I think Boris’s plan to put VAT on fees will be better.[/quote]
Would you then vote Cons?

@Placido why?

Independent schools already pay an enormous amount of VAT as they can’t reclaim any of the VAT that they pay ( state schools can) . If school fees become a standard supply then unless they change the premise of VAT as being a tax on the end user , independent schools will be able to reclaim large amounts of VAT. Even if they don’t do this it will be a charge on the parents and not the schools themselves . The really rich will barely flinch

@MarshaBradyo
I have voted Tory once but I could never vote for Boris however good his levelling up plans looked as I wouldn’t believe a word he said about anything.

[quote Placido]@MarshaBradyo
I have voted Tory once but I could never vote for Boris however good his levelling up plans looked as I wouldn’t believe a word he said about anything.[/quote]
True so he might say VAT and not do it

I’ve voted for both and can’t go with this or other Labour policies atm

You need to improve schools first and not simply assume that having the least wealthy of the private school parents now sending their kids to a state school creates automatic improvements.

@Peaseblossum22 I find the marketing of some of the private schools now very icky. Brand loyalty cards where you get discounts off partnered luxury good companies … glossy brochures … world beating facilities to attract Russian Oligarghs. It wasn’t like that when I was at boarding school. I think if you are branding yourself as a luxury good and partnering with luxury goods companies then yes your customers should pay VAT. I would want SEN children to go to private school free though if state SEN provision doesn’t improve enough (a lot of state SEN provision is very good I can see but class sizes is often cited by some as a reason they don’t work for their children.)

I agree with most of that but fail to see how charging VAT on school fees would make the slightest difference to any of the issues which you raise

[quote Placido]@Andante57 but isn’t it because Starmer wants to use the taxation money to put towards improving state schools? Greater good for the greater number philosophy. Not an attack on richer people per se, but a way of creating the best state schools so that the talent of all children recognised? That way we get better doctors, better nurses etc etc. And also in the world of sport if all state schools are better and provide sport in the way private schools do, we are finding talent for the sports like cricket and rugby that are often currently only played to a serious level at private schools - we have then a better, larger pool of talent to draw from meaning we field better international squads and can match eg New Zealand where rugby really is a grass roots sport played seriously in all schools.[/quote]
That's the theory. The practice/reality will be different. More pupils in state schools will need funding particularly SEN children who need even more funding for state schools, so there goes the money. Nothing left in the pot for doctors/nurses etc.

It achieves nothing, just attracts a few random voters who engage with the politics of punishment and envy.

@Peaseblossum22 well that would be down to those distributing the raised income wouldn’t it? Let’s see what the next story manifesto says - they have to come out with something big to appeal to their huge swathe if new voters.

My point is that there won’t be any ‘raised income’

@Peaseblossum22 I just looked up the prep and it is indeed a charity. The public benefit section was a bit dubious as it said local community is able to make use of facilities but I can only think of one club that hires them for 2 hours. Also made a big thing of care home visits. To me that is just not enough to justify charitable status. I don’t have an issue with schools having charitable status if they do something genuine with it. I feel like there are some they just take the piss though.

Andante57 but isn’t it because Starmer wants to use the taxation money to put towards improving state schools

Placido - fair enough. However if Labour win the next election, I wonder if private education will become for Keir Starmer what hunting was for Tony Blair.
Blair banned hunting as a sop and bargaining point to many Labour MPs so he could push ahead with policies not all of them agreed with.

@Andante57 yes and fox hunting is not far off a complete ban now due to the fact it’s leaders have been breaking the law for so many years - even those involved in hunting can see that what might have been a decent compromise has been scuppered by the idiots at the top of the sport - a tiny minority of gung ho individuals who think that laws don’t apply to them. Are you following the Mark Hankinson trial? Interesting times.

Many prep and public schools now have a large percentage of pupils who are not British born and whose parents are not UK resident. Given that overseas students pay more to study in the UK, is there a case for doing the same at primary/secondary level?

Surely it wouldn't take long for parents to work out tax efficient means of avoiding associated fee increases?
E.g. Granny's company covering the fees, or already having fees covered by employers through relocation packages

Zero benefit - and makes the UK/London perhaps even less attractive to skilled migrants already taxed to their eyeballs.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/top-english-private-schools-put-chinese-communists-on-boards-vxsdtjcpk

Might interest those who were wondering if private schools can pocket profits

@Placido

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/top-english-private-schools-put-chinese-communists-on-boards-vxsdtjcpk

Might interest those who were wondering if private schools can pocket profits

The link isn't working (and unless you have a share token, it won't be accessible to many)

Can you confirm if it is discussing schools which are businesses, or schools which are charities. If the former, then there's nothing in Starmer's proposals which would stop that, indeed it could have the perverse effect of making those schools even more profitable, if the proposed change to the law has the effect of putting educational charities out of business (won't know that until there is a more detailed proposal)

As noted earlier in the thread, the schools with recent-ish Chinese involvement, as found on Google, are all business chains.

*The link isn't working (and unless you have a share token, it won't be accessible to many)

Can you confirm if it is discussing schools which are businesses, or schools which are charities. If the former, then there's nothing in Starmer's proposals which would stop that, indeed it could have the perverse effect of making those schools even more profitable, if the proposed change to the law has the effect of putting educational charities out of business (won't know that until there is a more detailed proposal)

As noted earlier in the thread, the schools with recent-ish Chinese involvement, as found on Google, are all business chains.*

The part of the articles in the Times today relevant to charitable status is that various schools (charities) are paid royalties by offshore (typically Cayman Island) businesses for the use of their name to set up often dubious franchises run by unlikeable people* in other countries. Those Cayman Island businesses then make charitable donations to the UK charities thus avoiding tax.

*You aren't going to be allowed to set up a school in China without the agreement of high level officials in the communist party, and probably will have to have them on the board as well. That means that for example a free and frank discussion of the status of HK would not be possible in such a school.

No way should they claim to be charities, it’s taking the absolute piss!
I say this as someone who has worked for a private school.