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

https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/vat-on-school-fees-qa/#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20unless%20stated%20otherwise,addition%20to%20the%20stated%20fee.

This note is quite good. Kids on bursaries funded by the schools themselves no VAT. Bursaries funded by 3rd parties - VATable. Wonder how the just about making it parent is going to feel about schools self funding bursaries. What is the likely behaviour going to be? I am assuming they will make sure ballet/music schools funded by government or local authority funding will have to be VAT exempt.

People have said it might raise zero and they don’t care

So where is this extra funding for public services coming from?
Which apparently is coming up

They’ll get their joy over who was it ‘Clemmie’ moving schools and warm their blackened heart on tears of a child. 😬close. But the level of loathing reins supreme

Even from posters who earn half a mill and feel oddly superior and vengeful

I would say that there's a hell of a lot of 'MN pro-private' brigade that don't appreciate that having the ability to pay out £15k per child, per year does make them wealthy. It's irrelevant to most people whether the cut off point for those who can afford private schools goes a bit higher as the vast majority are no where near being able to afford anyway.

Lowering the number of privately educated pupils will lower the number of net contributors to tax if we believe the that by 25 years old privately educated pupils will earn 35% more than state educated pupils. We need to lift state education before we lower the number of privately educated ones. We want more people able to contribute to the tax base not less.

The question is not just about private schools though. We live close to a charity that provides music education services. So you go there to take music lessons and children participate in loads of different orchestras, choirs, speech and drama etc. At the moment they are VAT exempt and don’t charge the parents VAT on those orchestra fees etc and they use moneys raised and some extra money to fund music lessons and groups for poorer children. What is going to happen to all of these types of educational establishments? The whole point is that they do this so that some poorer children can become musicians and that talent is discovered. Often primary schools find gifted singers amongst KS1 kids and mention it to the parents. We now even have comprehensives then offering those kids with music aptitude places.
So what is going to happen? Will they now have to charge VAT in a cost of living crisis?

Even the local tennis club has an established charity to further sports education. What will happen there? Are they definitely going to be exempt?

Does this activity of the saintly local tennis club raise more than £85000 pa? If not, they won't pay VAT. This will also be a relief to those modern heroes running free cello tuition, rowing clubs and classical sculpture classes for no personal gain on the council estates of the nation.

“Does this activity of the saintly local tennis club raise more than £85000 pa? If not, they won't pay VAT. This will also be a relief to those modern heroes running free cello tuition, rowing clubs and classical sculpture classes for no personal gain on the council estates of the nation.”

There is no personal gain! Coaches are paid a standard rate, non funded kids pay a slightly above market rate and the excess is used for free lessons for kids to promote talent. They follow a certain number of free and supported places. The idea is to bring talent into tennis. Kids who are poor and at a certain level can then get sponsorship.
But you look down on Wimbledon right? It does not create revenue for the country? It isn’t something to aspire to right because the Royals and rich and famous go. So it is all a pretence right trying to get poorer kids to try tennis?

No, the expansion of ULEZ was not a Tory policy. That myth has been exploded by FullFact - see Government funding agreement did not force Sadiq Khan to extend ULEZ to cover all of Greater London - Full Fact

“I would say that there's a hell of a lot of 'MN pro-private' brigade that don't appreciate that having the ability to pay out £15k per child, per year does make them wealthy. It's irrelevant to most people whether the cut off point for those who can afford private schools goes a bit higher as the vast majority are no where near being able to afford anyway.”

Some of us are state school parents you know. Who can smell the b..shit. In my DCs state primary class, some went to comp, some to the grammars in Outer London, some went private. Not always determined by how rich the parents were. Private is not just a person born into a stately home with a Bentley predestined for a 4-18 education at Daddy’s Prep followed by Winchester College.
There are many there because they could not get into their local school, or their local school failed them or they are just there for Year 10 and 11. It is so ridiculous to assume that everyone has thousands lying around to pay for it.
Anecdote but I saw one of the dad’s who sent his only kid to private school busking recently. Indian family, hardworking, put everything into education for their child.

Paying school fees costs us less money than moving to a house in a good school catchment. If we were to do what many parents do and spend £150K moving to a decent catchment then how isn’t that an issue? We will spend 75K total on school fees over 5-7 years Vs 150K to move house. That doesn't make us wealthy and is why we live in a small house (semi detached 3 bed) because we can't afford 150K to move.

Sir Keir Starmer has so far managed to keep his own DC out of the limelight. But don’t be surprised when the Daily Mail paparazzi start hounding the secondary school his kids attend and publishing stories and interviewing the parents of SEN kids who have sold their grans home to fund a small private school. Because this kind of divisive policy leads to just that kind of behaviour. Like I said, if you live in London and have seen ULEZ play out, you know what I mean.

@Araminta1003
I literally said they were doing it for no personal gain, why are you getting shirty? I pointed out that, as with PP, earlier in the thread, scaremongering about small scale tuition being subject to VAT is unhelpful, the threshold for VAT is quite high. I did read Dan Evans' comments about British tennis being hopelessly class based and almost impossible to access for working class children so hopefully this will all change when all the clubs behave like yours.

@Hobbi - these are not small scale tuition charities! That is the whole point, they are sports and musical charities and they need scale to work because they need normal parents to pay up so they can use the excess towards smaller kids and they are already themselves providing the free courts (with their own richer members fund). It is really not that difficult to understand.
The local music charity has always been run on a very tight shoe string. It will definitely go bust if it has to charge VAT.

I see that repeated a lot on here so it’s good to have a fact based post

@Hobbi - yes I am getting shirty because I have seen how important all this stuff has been in London for raising the attainment of the very poorest kids and especially immigrant children, with which we have had great success.

I would say that there's a hell of a lot of 'MN pro-private' brigade that don't appreciate that having the ability to pay out £15k per child, per year does make them wealthy. It's irrelevant to most people whether the cut off point for those who can afford private schools goes a bit higher as the vast majority are no where near being able to afford anyway

Ok but define Wealthy? Yes my ability to pay private schools fees clearly means I don't earn minimum wage but in order to pay for these fees, I drive a basic car, DH and I both work full time, I live in a house less than I could otherwise afford and watch every penny. If you want to be basic about it, my salary will cover school fees, DH's everything else.

I'm not for a second suggesting that if everyone did that they could afford private school fees, that would be ridiculous, but for some it is a genuine option but they'd rather spend their money on different things. Fine. But they're not perceived in the same light. I really struggle with the concept that I'm automatically viewed as elite or posh or wealthy because I would prefer to pay school fees than spend money on things that are less important to me.

Thank you for the information. There are no tennis clubs for working class children in my city, but I look forward to more and more poor children making it on to the circuit. I mean, there's been zero so far, but fingers crossed.

You clearly haven't read them at all, probably just picked up on one sentence in one post and reached your conclusion.

a: I ve agreed its less than 2% of the education budget and not transformational.
b: That Labour need to bring fwd detail research on whether the plan will raise the required funds and even said if it will not, scrap this plan.

It would really help if you and others could read a post or even links posted.

ULEZ was a Tory policy.

Did i say "expansion of ULEZ" was a Tory policy? NO... Could the Tory Govt scrap ULEZ? (in England) yes of course, they make the rules.

Plus your link says the Govt expected ULEZ to be expanded, just not as much as Khan has done.

While a funding agreement between the government and Transport for London in 2020 did state that proposals to expand ULEZ should be brought forward, the Department for Transport says this referred to existing plans to extend the boundary as far as the North and South Circular Roads

extend = expand.

Sorry to be harping on about the music but the National Youth Orchestra is also an educational charity, for example. At the moment the poorest children can qualify for bursaries. We need these things in the arts and the lower middle class parents can barely afford the fees. With VAT on top who is going to cover that?

By your own admission your household income is over £400k.

How much voluntary income tax do you pay to minimise the discrimination and unfairness experienced by others?

Your average monthly household take home pay prior to pension payments will be £20k+ so plenty of room for some altruism if you feel so passionately about inequality.

Telegraph has been doing lots of pieces in the last couple Years about whether or not private schools are worth it anymore given the rising costs and the likelihood that an ‘elite’ education may actually go against kids when it comes to university places and opportunities.

On that basis surely you should be wanting more children to be privately educated as it is a waste of money, provides no benefit yet frees up money for the state system.

So, if privately educated children are disadvantaged when it comes to university places and opportunities, how are they privileged? Surely we should be encouraging the more wealthy families to use the private system, because that then frees up state places which apparently give more opportunity than private schools.