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

I can't see that would be a good option for anyone. At my children's selective school, we have private schools nearby too, there are 31-32 in each class.

Why do you so dismissively refer to parents who can “earn enough to drop a salary or two on fees” when by your own admission your own household income is over £400k per annum?

Do you appreciate people telling you how to spend the £20k you state your household receives every month?

‘Why do you so dismissively refer to parents who can “earn enough to drop a salary or two on fees” ‘

only the ones who are whining about fees increasing ( possibly) as a result of a change in the ‘charity’ status of education businesses. - private schools.
or whining about paying VAT (possibly) on fees.

There is no planned change to charitable status of any schools.

Regardless of that do you not think that it is somewhat distasteful for someone who states their household income is in excess of £400k pa to talk about people on far lower incomes “whining” about cost increases they may not be able to afford?

Have you actually understood that the charity status of those schools that are charities is not changing. That Labour have ruled that out?

You seem astonishingly incapable of absorbing information for someone earning £400k...

Ok, we’ll see. Its all up for grabs

‘You seem astonishingly incapable of absorbing information for someone earning £400k...’

mate, you have no idea of how easy it can be to earn a big salary on a little bit of talent, and/or a little luck, with a few years experience, in soooooo many professions.
And then meet a partner the same.
all the while being working class .

that being said - rude. We are both examples of how education can open up opportunities for smart kids who are give half a chance

Which industry do you both work in? It might be helpful for others who aspire to such wealth to understand where such opportunities exist.

The UK cannot get cross party support on Education or Health because the two main parties are worlds apart on both.
The Tories don't believe in state funded services, they have to provide them (to a point) because they'd be unelectable if they didn't.

Blair is often described as a Tory in a red suit but look what a so called "moderate" Cameron did from 2010? He undid all of what Labour had done over the previous 13 years e.g Surestart, NHS, new schools build, freezing public sector pay (why we have such low numbers entering teaching, nursing etc)

The current Tories are far more extreme.

IF this policy raises 1.5bn, then what exactly have you against it? why not see if it works or is the real reason, yet again, that the wealthy just want to hang on to as much of their money as possible.

@Absolutely45 I have explained on here so many times about why I am against it

Which is why i said IF it raises.....if so, why would you be against that?

£1.5bn is money needed in the state Ed sector, this country is close to 100% of debt to GDP, it simply cannot borrow more and cannot tax lower earners more either.
Growth will take too long too achieve, so where do we get the funds to put right 14 years of disinvestment?

Because 1.5 billion won't do anything to raise standards, it won't even cover RAAC.
Labour are being disingenuous about their reasons and how they will spend the money.
They have no other education policy other than VAT. it is the Brexit bus in red
It opens the door to VAT on university etc
If they were truly wanting to raise money they would VAT private health care but they aren't suggesting that because I would imagine most of them use it
No Labour MP sends their kid to a failing state school

It is an attack on private schools to drag th down rather than raise state school standards. They are lying and capitalising on the them Vs us ie populist policy. I would have more support for them if they were honest about it.

@Absolutely45 it also won't raise 1.5 billion, that is the optimistic amount because:

• schools can claim VAT back for eg building work etc
• they can't VAT food, transport or boarding
• there will be legal challenges which will cost a big chunk of that 1.5billion
• will they charge forces families and kids with SEN but no EHCP?
• under EU law you can't tax education so this will be a barrier for them getting closer to the EU again. They won't admit this though and many Labour supporters are banking on re-alignmemt with Europe
• There could be appeals under human rights Act eg taxing something which is a basic right

If labour proposed VAT on PHI it would hit millions of workers who have that as part of work contracts, hardly a vote winner.

I just skim read 23 pages of Labours ed policies, only at the very end do they mention VAT and business rates on private schools and that funding is subject to Labs fiscal rules and the state of the economy at the time.

So a whole lot more than just VAT, maybe read it first? comes up very quickly on Google.

You re just scare mongering with VAT on Uni's etc, no one ever has proposed that.

You sum up their reasoning perfectly. It is designed as a vote winner to appeal to economically illiterate voters.

Introducing a tax which will cause harm to some and likely not create any benefit for others is not a sensible economic or ethical policy but Labour and their voters aren’t bothered about that.

If they said they were going to bulldoze Eton and jail all the parents you’d see similar support.

Promoting a victim culture is all Labour has got and when people buy into it they expect the supposed perpetrators of their victimhood to be punished.

We are headed for dangerous economic times under Labour.

So you’re WC, state educated and with a little bit of talent and live in a country that allows progress to very high income. Not only allows it but it’s easy in sooooo many professions.

Hardly the problem of entrenched advantage people talk about when going on about private schools

Secondly if you gripe about wealth divide in the U.K. that is you - are you ready to lose a chunk to get it more even?

You do sound at odds with someone who can think things through well. What’s your job?

Ha ha the country has so boomed under Cameron, Boris, Truss and Sunak?

Yet Labour will bring "dangerous economic times" hear yourself!!

Your only argument, in particular, is to name call and insult.

It is not name calling it is simply stating the motivational facts behind Labour’s policy.

You only have to ask yourself why such a minor fiscal policy in terms of the overall UK economy is promoted so heavily by Labour.

The tax levels at lower salaries is nowhere near as significant as people may claim particularly when you take into consideration the myriad of in work benefits, child benefit and nursery funding that many receive.

Fiscal drag does of course have an impact however it is a drop in the ocean compared with how higher earners are treated.

If you create a scenario where higher earners feel unfairly treated many will then consider their options to mitigate the burden. Some will move overseas and take their work with them. Others will reduce hours. Some will plan earlier retirement. Whichever they chose the Treasury and by definition all non net contributions will lose out.

That’s not a good situation for a country that is reliant on an ever dwindling number of net tax payers to fund it but it’s precisely where Labour will take us based on their current rhetoric and previous manifesto.

@Charlie2121 is right on this

If Labour didn’t do this economically stunted stuff motivated by the envy vote and just got in we’d be better off than what they’re proposing

The major problem is is that they have very little else, certainly not much to raise funding so we’re heading into bad policy willingly

Higher tax payers always feel hard done by, sometimes justifiably but in the main, wealthier people stay in their home countries (they can afford too) Europe has higher tax levels overall yet their economies do better or as well as the UK plus they have better public services.

Lower earners need these extra in work benefits simply because they have seen crappy wage growth under the Tories, its not feasible to tax them more, they haven't got any extra to give.

Its actually the very people we need that leave their jobs to go over seas, Teachers, Nurses AHPs in particular, driven in part by low wages and better T&C's abroad, hence we then rob the 3rd world of their medics/teachers...boosting immigration and all the problems that causes with numbers now approaching 1m per year, thats economic illiteracy.

I don't really see Labour heavily promoting this VAT policy, nor promising to spend it multiple times either, in 23 pages on Ed policy, its gets a short mention in an appendix on pg23.

BUT as i keep repeating, i'd like to see Lab flesh out the research on this first.

This is incorrect. Schools don’t pay for EHCP applications. This is paid for by the Council, to the extent that they commission any assessments linked to the application (eg EdPsych, SaLT) and pay the salaries of the staff who are responsible for administering the process. In reality many parents applying for EHCPs end up having to pay out of pocket for private ASD/SLCN/EdPsych assessments etc to provide the necessary evidence with their application to ensure the Council considers rather than rejects the request in the first place. Once an EHCP is issued, the first £6000 of provision cost is expected to be met by a state school’s core budget for SEN provision, with any additional associated costs then paid for by the Council (on paper at least, the reality of often very different).
For a child in an independent school with an EHCP, securing the funding for provision is often an extensive negotiation between parents and Council as to who will cover what of the provision. So often the parents will end up paying the school fees AND for some of the costs of provision (eg SaLT intervention), with the Council then funding the remainder.

Sorry, that was in response to @LittleBearPad

I've read it and have been involved in the various debates (I'm a Labour member) and there is zero commitment to spend a single £ on education beyond the VAT increase & some blue sky dreams to grow the economy whilst retaining all of the Tory's disastrous tax/economic policies, a hard brexit (costing another £40billion) & a heavily watered down environment policy.

For me this is about as nasty as sending 200 poor souls off to Rwanda (at a cost of £350m without a singke ine being sent), won't in reality raise a penny and similarly is only meant to appeal to voters worst human instincts of envy & blaming others - & to do this (and hurt) kids is unforgiveable.

Many Labour members like me would support wealth taxes above £2m, city transaction taxes (0.25%), a 1.5p rise in corp taxes & equalising dividend income taxes (raising meaningful taxes - £40bn+ for education & health) but are appalled at this regressive VAT misopedia tax, which would hurt 167k kids who benefit from the £930m pa charitable giving by private schools & want no part of trying to destroy it for no benefit

Equating VAT on School fees to sending genuine asylum seekers to Rwanda with zero hope of ever getting back to the UK? are you for real?

For a "Labour party" member, you re doing a sterling job at getting the Tories back in, as you ve just rubbished Labours entire economic plans (so far released) which isn't really what a LP member should be doing.

The next GE could be 12months away, do you think Labour have a crystal ball & can predict what the Tories and world events may do to the UK economy?

One of the heading in the Times today is “Losses from leaving the EU could total £125bn per year”.

Why not start there? Get some proper money back in.
Intelligent women are not going to breed for you if you attack their children’s educational opportunities and deter them from working. And yes taxing private schools also effects the middle class state parent because it just means higher house prices/more tutoring.
Sick and tired of middle aged men in both parties trying to tell us how to live.