VAT on private school fees

[user1486984759]

So I’m going to get crucified for this, BUT, let me get this straight:

• We pay 45% tax, thereby funding state schools
• We do not get any benefits, and those that do get priority when it comes to state school admissions
• We scrimp and save from what’s left after paying 45% tax to pay for our kids’ education
• And now the state is going to add 20% to our school fees to fund state schools
• So we pay the most to fund state schools, but when it comes to state school admissions, we are last in line

How is this fair?

It seems that in this country, the best places to be are (1) a non-dom billionaire, or (2) someone who doesn’t pay taxes, gets all the benefits, and gets priority in state school admissions. The hard working PAYE earners are screwed by parties from left, right and center.

Corbyn's well to do son got a council house in prime London, in his 20s and bought it on the cheap and now rents it out on AirBNB!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6713033/Thats-rich-Corbyns-son-Sebastian-rents-ex-council-flat-Airbnb-fat-profit.html

Corbyn went to private school, his sons to a selective grammar school, hundreds of miles from the family residence.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/may/13/uk.politicalnews2

Diane Abbot sent her kid to private school
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/nov/01/uk.schools

These new breed of lefty can't but help be hypocrites, not one of them has ever got their hands dirty doing a days work.

Thing is the LIBLABCON have destroyed the country for those earning under lets say £45,000 per annum, and now they're targeting those up the wealth ladder.

“The School Admissions Code provides freedom for admission authorities of all schools to give admissions priority within their oversubscription criteria to children eligible for a pupil premium. It is down to the state schools to implement this in its admission policy. You already point out a few London grammar schools (they are state schools) that implement this policy.”

Errr, they are trialling it without much success! Here is an example: https://www.get-information-schools.service.gov.uk/Establishments/Establishment/Details/101676

Up to 10 places are meant for pupil premium per year (FSM any time within last 6 years needs to score in top 450 in stage one and will then automatically get a place)! Still only 15 in the whole school and 2.4% FSM.

What are the top comps doing? Why are not all FSM pupils allowed to just choose their schools? I know the answer - the academies would hate that.

I think the provision to allocate a number of places to FSM pupils is there as an option to redress the inequity where some schools in affluent areas have zero disadvantaged pupils rather than having a demographic intake that reflects the general population of their wider geographical area. Its not prioritising people on benefits, it's countering the existing setup that alllows selection-by-house-price to exclude the poor. But it's only used in a handful of schools that have fallen into afflence selection and are actively trying to serve their whole local population better but only by making the proportion of FSM pupils fair and equitable, not unfairly prioritised. The vast majority of schools don't have this as most don't need it.

“The vast majority of schools don't have this as most don't need it.”

@OlizraWiteomQua - are you sure this is true? I personally don’t know a single person who did not move into catchment for secondary school or tutored or paid up.

The Guardian article above claims Corbyn and his wife split up because they disagreed about selective grammar schooling.
Most educationally motivated parents deliberately choose a school catchment and are able to do it. That is where the inequity in our society exists affecting the 93 per cent of children.
Why are the Labour Party not addressing that as that is where the real moral hazard lies and they know it. But it wouldn’t be a vote winner. All they have to do is let all SEN and FSM kids choose their schools freely as a mandatory policy.

Another thing that would be easy and make sense is a flat 10 per cent inheritance tax for ALL. As most people have to file for probate anyway, that would raise a lot of cash and be easy to do. Most people use the NHS before they die extensively. Why not make everyone pay. Why keep messing around with the 4 per cent who pay a little bit. I know the answer- not a vote winner. It is much easier to blame the poshos and game the state school system to your advantage, make CGT free gains on your big house in North London etc.
Everyone in the country needs to contribute and pay up a little bit. And people who don’t pay taxes are the worst- so many cash car washes etc around and builders who don’t declare everything. The baddies are not some IT economic immigrants on 120k a year on PAYE. Far from it. The civil service knows all of this.

Ok I'll conceed that I should have left it as "most don't have this" without adding "most don't need it" because I don't have data for how many schools would benefit from such a measure. I was primarily making the point that most schools don't have any such countermeasures.

You don't pay 45% tax on all your income btw!!

You’re quite right. You have to pay 60% on some of it.

I pay the equivalent of about 38% on every penny I earn whereas someone on 50k would only pay 14%. They also get child benefit, free nursery hours and tax free nursery savings none of which I receive.

Labour’s attack on higher earners is a disgrace.

This.
I'm a single mum, and pay that much tax. I'll get no help with nursery fees , no child benefit and I work all hours God gives to provide for my dc as a solo parent.

Yes I am aware that they are able to have it in their oversubscription criteria, my point was that the overwhelming majority in London do not have it. And as @Araminta1003 pointed out, the few that do have very little success in getting those on FSM through the door.

As you previously said 'Most of the state school admission have priority to FSM / pupil premium children which usually live in low income or on benifit families.'
Where in the country is this that the majority of schools give priority to FSM?

Output VAT would be offset by Input VAT and open up cans of worms all over.
It will be dropped.

It’s the more wealthy schools which have huge capital expenditure who will be able to offset the most. It’s the smaller, often cheaper, independents who will suffer the most; schools which often cater for SEN. That’s why the proposed policy is non sensical. All it will achieve is making the more expensive schools even more elite. I really don’t think anyone has thought it through properly. It was only a few years ago that Labour delegates voted to abolish private schools and redistribute their assets to the state. They dropped that idea when they realised it could never work. Then they said they’d abolish charitable status. That’s now been dropped as well, because they realised it’s not workable. They really are grasping at straws with their populist attacks on private schools.

@Talkinpeace - really? Interesting. This has been a policy for a long time and initially it felt like everyone said it would be impossible to implement and legislate through.

But then this election got closer and it suddenly seemed to be labour’s number one policy, pretty much (and all private school parents got a bit nervous). There’s been SO much discussion around in now, surely a u-turn would be absolutely shocking for them? Do you really think they won’t do it?!

My gut feeling is that they’ll try to do it. Whether or not they’ll actually be able to is another question. Starmer has already said he doesn’t intend to diverge from EU law, which this would be doing. Labour have already abandoned the idea of stripping them of charitable status which they’d been going on about for ages. Who knows if the VAT plan will end up going the same way, as they start to realise that a policy change would have unintended consequences. I don’t think it’s as easy as they think it is.

I’m not sure how much they care about how non beneficial it will be, as there’s very little between the parties on funding / policies otherwise

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-64714201
This link give you an idea of every single grammar schools policy for priorty for deprived children. You can check if that is majority - I'm talking about priority on the admission policies not actual representation in these schools, they are different

The scandal is not with privates/grammars. The scandal is the comp idea sold as open to all. When the truth is so far from that and the Labour MPs themselves are using all those schools, trying to pretend they are doing the “right” thing.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/secondary-school-education-free-school-meals-b2476379.html

http://education.exeter.ac.uk/staff/profile/index.php?web_id=lee_elliotmajor

Professor of social mobility, Lee Elliot Major, at the University of Exeter, said it was “unacceptable that so many schools are failing to reflect the social make-up of the communities they are intended to serve”.
He added: “We need a fundamental reset of our priorities in education – schools should only be judged outstanding by Ofsted for example if they are taking in their fair share of free school meals pupils and demonstrating that these pupils are making good progress.

Those in power know the North East in particular is an issue, especially white working class boys are being failed. The research has been suggesting this for years.

These policies don't really help as this article shows. The problem in my area is that the schools are super-selective. To give preference, they reduce the required mark for pupils on FSM to gain admission. Problem being the reduced mark is still incredibly difficult to achieve - especially for a pupil who has not been prepared at all (state schools will not prep for 11+) and parents cannot teach or pay for tutoring.

As @Araminta1003 has pointed out with subsequent posts, comps (which actually make up majority of schools) are going in the other direction and the selection policies of the best performing ones are working in a way that reduces FSM students.

My point was that - contrary to some posters on here - middle class parents are not currently disadvantaged by school admission policies. The majority do not give preference to FSM so by having the means to move into catchment puts them at an advantage. Unfortunately it means a lower income family on the border of catchment will lose out on a place if the MC family does this instead of paying fees and sadly, they are going to be the biggest losers if VAT is added onto school fees.

VAT private schools question!!!!
If labour get in and they increase fees by 20% will this mean that every single year they will rise by a further 20%???? Or once they go up by 20% will subsequent years just rise like they normally do in schools??

Fees will continue to rise every year PLUS 20%

So the 20% is added on yoy as well as the normal rise in fees by the school?? Dear lord….

Yep! Hence why it very quickly becomes unaffordable

Fees will continue to increase each year as they would have done anyway, but the fees will then have 20% VAT added. It won’t be an increase of 20% every year. Schools may be able to reclaim some input VAT which they currently can’t do, which might mitigate the fee increase to some extent.

As an example. Assume fees would increase 5% each year anyway. Assume VAT introduced in year 3.

Year 1 : £20,000
Year 2 : 5% increase £21,000
Year 3 : 5% increase £22,050 plus 20% VAT £26,460
Year 4: 5% £23,152 plus 20% VAT £27,783

And then it becomes unaffordable for many of us! We have allowed for up to 8% fee rise per year but 5% + VAT is not sustainable. So from 2 working FT parents we will have to go to 1 FT working parent + 1 SAHM to home school for Yrs 9-11. So government lose my tax contributions.