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?

@TizerorFizz - you express that very clearly!

@Herecomesthesunshine83 - you ask what people will do. I'll keep DD at her school, because it's brilliant and it's helping her to grow into a fantastic version of herself - which is something that will be with her for her whole life. Not because of any sneaky advantages, or old-boys network, or unfairly high grades - but the outlook, capabilities and personal characteristics she's developing.

It doesn't take away from anyone else that she's had these opportunities for personal growth.

I'm obviously not suggesting that DC at state school don't also become fantastic, capable, brilliant people who can do absolutely anything.

I'm saying that private school is benefitting my DD, and it's what I want to spend my money on.

As a side-effect, DD being a better version of herself also benefits society a tiny amount. That's obviously not why I'm doing it. But it is why VAT wasn't previously charged.

If the government put VAT on books, I'd continue to buy her books because a life-long love of reading will benefit her.

But if VAT was added to books vindictively - just because not everyone reads to their kids - and people were glad that some kids now won't have any books of their own, then I'd feel that was unfair and bad policy.

The vindictiveness expressed about private schools makes me feel a bit less engaged with society. I don't like being vindictively squeezed for extra cash (which other people don't have to pay for their own luxuries like holidays abroad) whilst simultaneously being told I deserve it and looked down on. I've previously felt quite good that the tax I pay helps other people (an adult earning over about 40k is a net financial contributor to the state, below that is a net recipient who is subsidised by the > 40k earners), but I don't any more.

My children are at private school for secondary having been at our village primary ( luckily years 10&12 so it will not greatly affect me) I appreciate I have been very lucky to be able to afford to send them but it has meant me working very long hours and multiple weekends to afford it. My children have had fantastic opportunities that they would not have got in state school or at least not easily living rurally with a working mother ( mainly sporting and musical) If they hadn’t been at private school I would still have worked but not done the extra.
I can afford VAT for one but not 2 sets of fees and I suspect others who are just affording fees will be in the same position.
I agree that it is a tax based on ideology and squeezing the rich but unlikely to make any significant difference to the state of the economy.
I would have voted labour as am ( despite the private schools) a liberal leaning lefty who would happily pay more income tax for better public services- buses, libraries, school music service, access to the NHS but this policy does make me think twice.

A Land value tax would certainly help with inequality in this country, it is not punitive and it is immobile which means you can't find a loophole to avoid paying it. One of the biggest issues in equality is regional distribution of income mainly because the very wealthy are more likely to live in West London than Newcastle. This would be a solution for reducing those disparities.

Who would this hit?

A struggling family in London has no more capacity to pay an extra tax just due to location

Ditto pensioners with little disposable income in London v Newcastle

Unless you want to exclude land the main residence is on as for CGT

Just realised this is the VAT thread not tax one. Didn’t mean to continue different topic. Although if there were restrictions I’d prefer it to this poor policy

I had always assumed that there were people who thought like this but it's still shocking to see it. How do you account for the disproportionately high number of privately educated people in positions of power when the vast majority of bright, high achieving schoolchildren are in the state sector?

I think it’s quite complicated in that it will necessarily affect other things. Firstly, if VAT is applied to fees then that is applying VAT to education, something we couldn’t do when we were under EU regulations. That means that it could start a very slippery slope of applying it to music lessons, dance lessons, martial arts etc - where would it stop? It will end up making everyone’s extra-curricular a lot more expensive. This may or may not be something the opposition will want to point out and may prove a sticky point for Labour, encouraging them to kick it down the road a bit. Secondly, it’ll be interesting how well this goes down with support bases in places like London where the pressure for grammar will become even more intense than it already is. As well as that, it will mean private schools can claim back for other VAT purchases which currently only state schools can do. For the biggest, poshest schools this could actually mean quite a cash injection if they’re retrospectively claiming for swimming pools etc. Finally, a lot of private schools (the bigger, more financially healthy ones) will probably try to absorb the cost themselves for a few years. This is what my eldest daughter’s school is proposing and I imagine will be quite a common approach (obviously not possible for the small privates) so hopefully there won’t be a huge impact on the families of children already in the sector.

This policy will do absolutely nothing for “the majority”, apart from making school funding tighter as some private kids go into the state sector and take up more of the funding/squeeze existing class sizes for state sector kids. No idea why you think it will raise any money or make anything in education better.

But that's not the point as you can see for some on here. As long as those they as 'born into privilege' are negatively affected who cares who else gets affected. As ever the rich always = 'have more than me' to some!

It will be overnight.

Just like they did with uni fees in 1997.

The entitlement shown on this thread is breathtaking but yes, this probably wins hands down for most obnoxious post on the private school VAT subject.

Some of us are lucky in that our DC our bright anyway so private school would be a huge waste of money! But to deny there is no social advantage, especially from attending some of the most prestigious schools in the country is fiction, look at the stats, disproportionately represented everywhere, even the BBC seem to have to only employ people that have gone to prestigious private school and Oxbridge for any vacancy in politics, I think 'all' political editors have followed that route which rather begs the question how can they challenge the establishment when they are the establishment!

In all honesty, I don't think Labour are trying to convince your demographic to vote for them, you are against every policy that attempts to lessen wealth inequality.

I'm not sure why people are shocked by the Labour party taking a position on Private schools and the principle of them. The parents of those who send their DC to them are more likely than not to be Tory voters so they are not going to try and appeal to you with their policies. Why is this so shocking a revelation.

@Goldenbear how many labour mps do you think send their dc to private schools?

My dc just left state for university your imagination is running wild. Your post makes you sound convinced you know me, luckily for me you don’t.

I have just said I would be more interested in a tax that is able to capture receipts. Idk why a land tax (outside residence) has not been floated so far, by Blair or Starmer but on the face of it I think it sounds good and I would prefer it.

Any tax needs to have numbers and behaviour analysis so maybe Land tax falls down here, no idea

I’m against this particular policy because it’s poor. It brings low benefit and damages and is divisive.

Labour seem to be waking up to the fact that tax effects behaviour given the change on non dom and reversal on no bonus cap by Reeves. All in line with what I’d want, who knows maybe they’re paying attention and will change on this. If they have sense

The way that you worded your response read like you believe a land value tax is a poor policy, you are quite prolific on this subject so we can hardly miss your opinions, I don't know anybody in real life with such extreme neo-liberal views as yours so I equally very much doubt we know each other; I'm 100% sure you are happy in your echo chamber and gated community!

In fact, did you mean to be so rude? 🤔

Don't know- you tell me? That's not the point I'm making, it is testament to the bubble you must occupy of you think the Labour party are going to prioritise the votes of such a small percentage of the population who are seemingly well off!

Tedious insults aside which are based on low understanding I think you misread my post. The gated community remark is so silly you can only have trouble getting behavioural impacts.

I think land tax is good but I wanted to clarify which groups it would hit, hence the question. If you mean over a certain amount then I’m all for it.

Idk why it hasn’t ever been proposed, maybe there is something else haven’t thought of, but I would much prefer it to this policy

If we’re going to tax more it’s better to go for things that don’t cause movement to opting out

Tax impacts behaviour, it’s not widely thought about but luckily even Reeves seems to be becoming aware of the fact. A good example is switching to no bonus cap after being against

You can apply your insults to her on this too if it makes you feel good.

You obviously went to charm school - was it fee paying as if so you should ask for your money back!

Philosophy aside, I don’t think this policy will achieve the social equality it wants.

We have children in private schools, but with VAT we will just move them to state at the next natural transition point (Y7, Y10 and so on). We can afford it but simply don’t want to pay any more taxes out of our after-tax income. We’ll just save the fees to pay for deposits for their first house instead.

Many parents will strive to give life advantages to their children, and private schools is just one of the ways. If it becomes more expensive because of VAT, people will just choose another..

Says the poster going on gated communities or whatever

I started by asking a normal question on who would it apply to and you went off on one

You could have answered without the insults

I think land tax is not on the menu because to be effective it would hit a much larger portion of the electorate than those that send their kids to private schools. Also, there is a myth that we live in a meritocracy, and education is effective at ordering outcomes fairly. So if you provide everyone with the same educational opportunities, society become fairer. To achieve this you end up with policies that close grammar schools, increase the number of undergrads to 50% of school leavers, put VAT on school fees etc.

The result so far is less social mobility and less of a meritocracy not more. Maybe education is the wrong target. Go figure.

So anyone who isn't on the barricades with goldenbear protesting against 'the rich' is in a bubble/echo chamber/gated community?
Again very much of the left purity spiral mindset of 'stop having your own opinion, we'll tell you what to think, and even if you acquiesce, we'll still call you names'!

It’s bizarre

The idea that any tax policy should be assessed for benefit v damage and behavioural impact shouldn’t be outside Labour’s remit even

People get very highly strung and their imagination runs wild

You can apply that fictional narrative to anyone who disagrees with you on wealth but unless you are very wealthy which doesn't appear to be the case if you are worried about VAT on school fees, you need to wake up and smell the coffee!

I didn't even vote for Labour in the last election as there was no point in my constituency. I went to private school until I was 12 so do understand the general merits and absolutely shit parts of a private education but I don't think who you vote for is all self-interest.

Income wise DH and I have a high joint income, to some in different parts of the country definitely privileged, I'm unsure why you think I'm some commie, maybe you lack an imagination...

I just fell for your tit for tat, I think it was the glad I don't know you comment that I felt was a bit unnecessary, below the belt, I should've risen above it though as there is no advantage in being rude.