20% vat on fees

[namechangedforthisone35]

IF Labour get in and IF the 20% does get added to fees, how many private school pupils will be moved to state? I have three kids (one not school aged yet) and in private school. One of many reasons because I didn't want them in a class of 30. I couldn't afford the vat increase so would have to move them but then that class of 30 becomes, what, 40?! In an already strained and unresourced system?!

Wwyd?

Y - I'd have to move kids to state
N - I'll pay the vat

‘My bet is that whatever isn't eaten up by schools claiming back all their VAT for the last 4 years will be spent on legal fees.’

Mmm, missing the point. A lot of people
are just sick to death of the wealthy being given tax and financial breaks they should have no right to.
If it didn’t raise a penny, who cares?

Private schools are not charities. They’re businesses. Selling services to the very well off.

Most are charities even Starmer can’t change that.

You still seem obsessed with the charities thing. Labour have dropped that.

Some are charities. You can whine all you like but it doesn't change that fact.

And thank you for saying the truth that this is nothing more than the bitter politics of envy.

Which is why Labour will not be getting my vote.

Why would I not use private school when the state option for us is dire?
Of course schools have to pass some of the costs on otherwise it means cutting the things that we chose the school for.

Like I have said, it is people wanting to drag the private schools down. Why aren't you campaigning to raise the standards in state schools instead? Some countries incentivise parents who chose private education because it reduces the burden on the state. In this country we look to penalise in order to drag everyone down to the bottom of the educational pile.

I can’t believe anyone in Labour will be losing any sleep over losing the vote of people who would never vote for them anyway…

Lifelong Labour voter here who will now not be voting Labour. But don't let your prejudices stop you.

The things you propose might happen are only available to the v wealthy.
e.g Structures to avoid tax, moving to Dubai, paying in advance... inheritance tax (remind me again how many actually pay this tax?)

I also doubt Teachers are leaving the profession because of high tax rates, exact opposite - low pay and long hours.

My sister is a teacher, i'll ask her is she knows any colleagues that send their kids to private school (wouldn't have thought many could afford it?) i do know a few who use the Grammar school sector.

Its funny that you suggest "posh protest" yet the 90% who don't use the private sector should just suck up shite education.

Its a great pity you don't put your considerable arguing skills to improve the state sector, which shouldn't be a Right vs Left thing but what is good for the country.

Given they need a 12.7% swing to get a majority of 2 seats (well beyond the largest swing recorded) I'm thinking that they might.

It's not a done deal that they win the GE

Labour may well not care if I vote for them or not, but they definitely care if I get off my backside and go and vote for the Tories.

Very true, anyone who thinks, any certainty, Starmer will be our next PM is a fool.

Also this feels like a blind spot going by your posts but you are ‘the wealthy’

I do understand @Whazzabanger - I mean if you send your kids to Eleanor Palmer and then Dame Alice Owen then of course you are going to think all state schools are great. And what are these pesky people paying up for private school? What a waste of money!

I have a proposition.

All persons earning over 100k who happen to be using Outstanding state schools for their own children need to pay a privilege tax. 5% extra on your income. I mean you chose state and saved a ton of cash and prevented a poor child attending instead because really the poorest should be going to the best schools because that would actually help society in the long run. Let’s take that cash and put it into a pot for the most deprived state schools in the country. That may actually help those schools because some of the 93% will actually be contributing some funds.

This would likely be an easier piece of tax law to implement than one that makes education VATable yet remains compatible with EU Law.

@Whazzabanger I would be very interested to know which school your DC attend because with your self declared level of salary then I would presume it isn't a failing school? By failing i mean one with high staff turnover and many teacher vacancies, high % FSM and low outcomes at GCSE/Progress 8?
However happy to be proven wrong

Are you suggesting that the 93% don't pay tax?

No, I am suggesting there is plenty of wealth in the state sector concentrated in outstanding state schools. I suggest the IFRS produces a detailed report.

That was meant to say the Institute of Fiscal Studies should look into the income distribution in outstanding state schools and report on the feasibility of a privilege tax. Given the 100k mark seems to be so magical I suggest we go with that.

Because I am sure people will agree that if we are going to tax parents on their children’s schooling then surely it should be linked to their income? An outstanding state school is just as privileged as many private schools, often better. And if those parents can afford to support the state sector then why not?

Are you suggesting that the 93% pay 93% of the tax?

And I think if those state school
parents don’t want to pay the extra tax then of course they are free to withdraw their children and place them into a worse local school. If you are expecting some poorer than you private school parents to do just that, let’s make it fair and let’s make it actually fund the state sector better. Because that is what we need, funds for state schools. Let’s make everyone who can contribute. Because the aim is about acknowledging privilege right and making things fairer for all.

You re onto something here.

This could be a revenue raiser, the wealthy who use NHS GP 's, NHS hospitals all could all be charged a similar tax, why aren't they doing the decent thing and giving up their NHS place by going private?

Or how about we just ask the users of private schools to pay VAT/Business taxes?

Hang on, this should be right up your street.

Why are you insisting that those who in many cases can't afford it and don't use the state system to fund it, while snubbing suggestions that those who definitely can afford it and don't pay for it, to continue to use premium state resources for free?

they’ll likely start looking at what else they can catch - universities, nurseries, care homes, private healthcare etc.

I thought universities would come under education, or have Labour explicitly said universities won’t be charged VAT?

“This could be a revenue raiser, the wealthy who use NHS GP 's, NHS hospitals all could all be charged a similar tax, why aren't they doing the decent thing and giving up their NHS place by going private?”

Feeling a little confused now. The majority of consultants work both privately and on the NHS. Paying for private health care simply means paying up to incentivise that consultant to do less NHS time and bypassing the waiting list. But because the state doesn’t want to pay that consultant their worth in the first place, they close their eyes to the practice. And encourage it. And if private business generating taxes for all wants to pay for private health care let them do it because the result is more tax revenue.

I have another great idea. What does “wealthy” mean in this country? Can’t spend on hmrc assessor to do a proper job. Let’s just call it anyone living in a house mortgaged or not or even renting it in the top two council tax bands. Let’s make them pay for the NHS! Fair?!

Surely they’re just going after those pesky private schools for votes

I mean it’s a dim policy but they can’t be that dim