If labour win the election can they introduce VAT immediately?

[londonparent321]

(For school fees) Or do they need to go through the courts which could take years /never happen?

100%. Grandstanding with politics of envy. It's just such a negative reflection of their values, let's penalise aspiration for very little reward.

Yes little to no reward and the damage along the way

Worst kind of policies

It's not vindictive to tax the rich,

This policy has nothing to do with increased taxes based on wealth or income. There are lots of people at private school who are not “rich”. There are also plenty of people at state school who are “rich”, who are using state resources despite being able to afford otherwise, and who won’t be affected by this proposal.

@MyGooseisTotallyLoose

The point is state schools should be properly funded to support ALL kids with additional needs, not just the lucky few who manage to secure a private place.

This isn't possible under a Tory government and without higher taxes, because the Tories couldn't care less and taxation on higher incomes is too low,.

My household would welcome paying more under labour government, we're high earners who actually believe in building a better society FOR ALL.

@Another76543

If you can afford private school fees YOU ARE rich. Do you understand what most ppl in this country earn?

So how much are you donating to charities NOW then, who's stopping you giving all your disposable income away?

I am not jealous or vindictive, hating private school parents.

I believe passionately in the importance of striving for equality in society. I realise that this is a pipe dream and that improving educational chances for all cannot do this in one fell sweep. However I know that equality of educational opportunity is one of the single most important factors in social mobility. My personal experience tells me that private education buys privilege and opportunities that sustain inequality.

In my utopia there would be no private education and the state offering would be vastly improved. In the real world I support a move that at least acknowledges what private education is - a luxury that should be taxed appropriately.

If that tax revenue is earmarked for the improvement of the state sector then even better.

Personal attacks on posters who don't agree with one's point of view are lazy debating. Let's talk about the real issues and why your own personal problems with paying a tax are not the fundamental principle at stake.

@EasternStandard Politics like this are designed to be vindictive. To punish. To divide society further. It’s not the policy of a party trying to bring the nation together or make sure society is fixed.

Labour can never go into an election without a policy bashing folk they believe to be rich. It’s cheap politics based on class but clearly the damage will be done to people who might support labour in many other policies. In many ways it demonstrates what’s wrong with politics. It’s not designed to fix anything. It’s designed to punish people who take a different view on how their dc are educated and quite simply, they are not harming any other child.

Out of interest, if schools decide they no longer wish to.to be charities and become standard businesses, would this mean they no longer have to offer bursaries? What would be the advantage of remaining as a charity? Does anyone know? Many schools use fee income for bursaries, so surely these would be at risk? Anyone have views on this?

Yes I do. However, there are people at private school who are not very highly paid, but place huge value on education and make sacrifices to send their children to private school.

This policy is nothing to do with taxing wealth and income though. It taxes only those who choose a certain type of education (only around 6% of the population).

Take 2 families, both earning exactly the same and with the same amount of wealth. Family 1 spends £15,000 on education. Most sensible countries and cultures view a decent education as a good thing. Family 2 spends £15,000 on a foreign holiday. Family 1 gets hit with a £3,000 VAT charge. Family 2 pays no VAT on their spending, and costs the state £7,000 by educating their child in a state school. Family 1 has contributed £3,000 to the state, family 2 has cost the state £7,000. There is no logic to the policy.

If we really want to address the funding issues in state schools (although many problems have nothing to do with funding), why don’t we add 1% on to the general 20% rate of VAT so everyone pays? That would raise around £7bn, multiples of even the most optimistic estimates of the amount raised by VAT on school fees.

@Nevermindtheteacaps You confuse what “rich” really means. You mean richer than you. If any government over taxes choices people make, they stop spending. Just look at hospitality right now. Restaurants and pubs closing everywhere but we never realise that punishing via tax means employment opportunities diminish.

If society spends money, and we have high productivity to earn well, we have a bouyant economy. We allow people to make choices. Where do you think taxation should stop? Private health costs? Would you like vat levied on expensive meat or cheeses? What about higher vat on electricity and gas if your consumption is high because your house is “too big”? Slapping down aspiration never works. It’s heading towards a controlled society and not a harmonious one. Most voters don’t care about vat on school fees. It’s grandstanding.

@NewYearOldMe2024 do you think the government should stop funding fantastic schools, sports and extra curricular activity centres in inner city areas? It's not very fair to the rural schools is it who are not getting these built for them?

Quite! We have friends who earn well (joint income of around 300k plus rental income) and yet choose to send both children to state school and just fund pensions and investments instead. That's completely fine but I don't see how it benefits the state any more!

Exactly this. I don’t think a lot of people in favour of the VAT realise the state of some schools in certain areas of the country. Do I think that those excellent state schools with great facilities should be punished or have things taken off them? No. I think that all state schools should be the same. Let’s raise standards.

It’s been shown that reading with your child increases their life chances. Surely it’s “unfair” that books are “subsidised” by the state. Let’s add VAT on to new books as well. After all, there are state funded libraries which we could use instead. It’s a ridiculous argument.

@Another76543 I've just re read my post. I can't see where race to the bottom is what I have advocated but I observe that on these threads that there is a lot of extrapolation.

You said

“My personal experience tells me that private education buys privilege and opportunities that sustain inequality. In my utopia there would be no private education and the state offering would be vastly improved”

But now you’re saying you don’t want to harm the private, top performing schools?

@NewYearOldMe2024 you said that you would like there to be no private schools since "private education buys privilege and opportunities that sustain inequality.".

Having a secure home has a much bigger impact on a child's life chances than private education.

So let's punitively tax home ownership so that all children have equal (lower) life chances.

@Nevermindtheteacaps You desire equality but you won’t get it. Communist states tried it and look at them! We achieve more by aspiring to do well. By having a nation that values high earners who pay more income tax. They pay for the services enjoyed by others.

Why is a race to the bottom good? Many people are now waking up to the idea that university and striving hard for a better paid job gives you choice in life. Take that away and what’s the point? Labour tried taxing at 80% in the 70s. All in the name of equality and driven by the unions. Labour eventually realised you need high earners. You need business owners who get high return for risk. If you make society too equal, you squash ambition but many people who own businesses are state educated. Division by labels like “rich” is always a road to poor economic performance. The Tories have over taxed and look where we are! Doing badly. We need to improve the wages of some but not at the expense of over taxation. It’s better to do it by productivity not politics of jealousy.

This policy will barely touch the super rich and the elite public schools . It’s inconvenient and for appearances they have to behave as if they are bothered but in reality there will be little to no impact on the Eton, Harrow, Marlborough’s if this world. In fact they may actually benefit from it .

The schools affected the most will be the small local independents who survive on fee income and small margins and have little or no reserves . Disappointingly for many on this thread most of these are not actually charities either ( unlike their elite cousins) .

Also Labour have said that whilst they intend to spend the tax raised from this on schools that tax in this country is not hypothecated and therefore it will depend on budgetry constraints , so in reality it could go anywhere .

Social mobility is enhanced by good parenting, good schools, good living conditions and ambition. None of this is prevented by a minority of parents using private schools. Put all of the above right and there is better social mobility. One huge barrier is the people you think should be socially mobile don’t really want to be. You want it for them. In reality these dc don’t like school, are not that bright, don’t really want anything better and don’t want to work that hard either. So low wage jobs is what they will get. Being a doctor or business owner isn’t on their radar.

@pootleq5 It does put smaller schools at risk. If they are not charities I assume they don’t have to offer bursaries? I think some of these small rural schools will be at risk.

This policy has nothing to do with charitable status. Charities are not exempt from VAT , in fact many charities pay huge amounts of VAT ( including the large independent schools) . They do not ‘charge’ VAT , not because they are charities but because education is an exempt supply regardless of who supplies it.

As regards bursaries , most small independents operate on very fine margins so yes I expect bursaries to be cut, also sibling discounts etc

Because they believe the lies that there'll be an influx if money to the state system.

Ignoring the fact that most people in Indes will just pay the increase in fees, schools will claim back VAT, and that those few priced out will just buy the houses next to excellent state schools at an inflated price, pricing locals out of the area 🤷‍♀️

Oh, yes, and ignoring the fact that it will force ALL education providers to charge VAT, that includes specialist provision schools, paid for by local councils to help children because educated...which means they will find fewer places/divert funds.

Oh yes, and the SEN children having funded places at Inde Schools risk losing the specialist support...

On first para - It really does it’s so depressing

On second no idea

Labour have u turned and dropped a fair amount if they have sense they will this one

There will be job losses and children with complex needs will lose their places at these kinds of schools, because where are the council getting the extra money from to pay the increased fees/costs?

I think you'll find that property prices are the single most important factor in social mobility at the moment in this economy. For most people wages (apart from maybe NQ magic circle lawyers and maybe finance) have lagged behind asset price inflation over the last 30 years. The quality of your eduction becomes less and less relevant to your economic opportunities. If you want to improve social mobility you'll need to narrow wealth inequality first. Your obvious levers will be inheritance tax, CGT and wealth tax.