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?

@EasternStandard ,

‘Yes it’s odd when people assume mothers primarily are not educated or informed just because it’s mn’.

That is a total straw man argument.

Even if you were a brilliant economist, this kind of research on the impact of fiscal measures is unlikely to be your speciality. And, even if it is, you haven’t taken the time to do a paid, researched and referenced piece on this.

It is a little like reading a research piece on vaccine damage in the Lancet and challenging it with anecdote as ‘there are a lot of educated and informed medics on MN’ (which I am sure there are btw).

I’m not claiming to be an expert, but behaviour is something I’ve worked in and economics as study.

It doesn’t matter though it’s just a chat forum no one has to do comprehensive studies to post an opinion, that’s the point of it

In any case the IFS report states ‘There is still lots of uncertainty around these estimates’

‘Lots of’ is very casual but there you go

My main point was people can see mn as devoid of informed women, just because of the mother angle

Medical research is a lot more methodical and research-based than economics.

If you get 2 economists in the room, you get 3 different opinions about the impact of any given policy

(I'm not an economist, just know some)

Exactly

Exactly! And even the ones who are now SAHM often had these careers before having children!

Of course. Because being stuck with fees and a term’s notice and the prospect of not getting grammar but the least popular school will be a strong motivation to change behaviour

Yep especially when it includes not just static numbers but dynamic behaviour impact

Apparently the treasury only uses the static model which is surprising given how much behaviour changes due to policies like tax but maybe they know how hard it is to get close

Of course. I half-wonder whether the threat might even affect behaviour even more than the actual increase will after everything settles down. People aren't entirely rational when assessing risk, and a sense of uncertainty could be enough to tip the balance.

Another thing it will be impossible to assess, but interesting to consider!

True @strawberrybubblegum

Given the increased competition for grammar this year, and following, and that some dc will be bumped out because potentially private dc have crossed over does it feel worth it still?

For some dc in state they’ll be at a different school already due to the policy which is highly likely

I think this is true - we had 3 families, who had put a deposit down to start in yr R in Sept 2023, pull out this year due to the risk - I suspect impacted by cost of living too.

at our school we have seen a marked decrease in intake from reception. It will have various contributing factors, but VAT is a significant part of it, especially when parents are ALSO dealing with CoL and broader economic uncertainty. I see some parents leaving proactively now when they can better time the transition. I think relativity few will be forced out precipitously if VAT is applied but only because those who would be at risk are already taking themselves out of the system.

interestingly, we also seem to be getting more later year transfers , which are almost all parents who are unhappy with their experience in state. High representation of SEN in this group, but also children under/over performing and not getting support, and anxiety/school refusal. Broadly speaking local schools are increasingly struggling to meet childrens’ needs and those who can afford to are looking for other options.

I am not sure how the twin forces will balance out, but assuming we are able to maintain viability it will certainly change the makeup of our school.

The point to note in grammars is not just the increased 11 plus applications from private preps or others who may have otherwise chosen independent at 11 plus transferring from state primary.

What they are going to monitor carefully will also be those joining in Sixth Form post GCSE with top grades gained in private schools. We will find that out in the summer. The same will have to be observed across all successful State Sixth Forms. It would be good if this were properly researched and tracked.

So people won't have £20k in their pocket @Newbutoldfather , they just won't make the decisions for a SAHM to go back to work or a part-time working one to increase days, or else will just keep putting more in their pension.

You have forgotten probably the biggest likely shift of spending - housing. Both moving into a better property for the sake of it, but also and significantly in order to get into better school catchments. Even without VAT, I know many parents who balanced the cost of housing in a better catchment versus private schooling. It was a very deliberate choice between the two.

That was us. 150K+ to move to the catchment of a good state school or 75K for private school fees.

It is a little like reading a research piece on vaccine damage in the Lancet and challenging it with anecdote as ‘there are a lot of educated and informed medics on MN’ (which I am sure there are btw).

Interesting choice of example…

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/feb/02/lancet-retracts-mmr-paper

@SaffronSpice and @twistyizzy ,

‘You have forgotten probably the biggest likely shift of spending - housing. Both moving into a better property for the sake of it, but also and significantly in order to get into better school catchments. Even without VAT, I know many parents who balanced the cost of housing in a better catchment versus private schooling. It was a very deliberate choice between the two.’

And how much does an expensive house move raise for the exchequer with stamp duty at 10% plus for more expensive properties? And that doesn’t even include removal costs and all the renovation people normally do when they move.

Probably far more than a shift to other vattable goods.

@SaffronSpice ,

‘Interesting choice of example…’

You have seriously gone back 26 years to find one of the very few clearly fraudulent Lancet papers for your ‘gotcha’ moment!

Are you suggesting the IFS is deliberately being fraudulent in their analysis?

Expensive houses in good school catchments aren’t built to meet demand. Someone else would already buy the house and move in so you can only include the marginal increase in cost of the housing driven by the increased demand.

I think we need more than one IFS report by one author who qualifies it with

‘There is still lots of uncertainty around these estimates’

That ‘lots of’ is doing some heavy lifting there. I’d love to know how prepared and supported the author felt given how much their paper is being leant on and the actual impact on children’s education as a result

I take it no one for the policy feels it will be one of their dc bumped from grammar. Now that will bite

Luckily even though I’m not for the policy that doesn’t apply to us tg

The IFS have based their assumptions on no changes of behaviour and haven't accounted for schools claiming back VAT on projects over theclasr few years. It also doesn't take into account the administration of applying VAT. So even from these examples the sum will be less than the 1.5 billion which was always an optimistic figure. Most probably it would end up being under 1 billion so less than 1% of the annual education budget.
If people they start changing their habits and go to state schools that figure will reduce even further.
That's why a 1p education tax would be fairer and raise more revenue over the long term. We all benefit from education so we should fund it properly with a significant injection of cash rather than dribs and drabs here and there.

Well here is a correction they published just last month. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(24)00078-4/fulltext

You completely misunderstand the nature of scientific publication if you think the results and conclusions of papers are not open to discussion and criticism. The Lancet in particular seems to have had some very questionable papers of late. Let us not forget their notorious reference to women as ‘bodies with vaginas’ - you do not need to be a research scientist to have a legitimate view on that!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10035415/Lancet-editor-apologises-calling-women-bodies-vaginas-medical-journals-cover.html

@SaffronSpice ,

You are either not understanding my point or being deliberately obtuse (most likely).

The whole point of real Science is that it is subject to repeated questioning and reexamination. Scientists attempt to either replicate findings or refute them, either based on research or better statistical methodology of existing data.

They don’t, however well qualified, pluck a few numbers out of the air and say ‘nah, don’t think so’.

So, if someone made a post with a couple of decent links (not an academic paper) and made a good point, it would be worth considering but, at the moment, it is a lot of people shouting angrily ‘if you expect me to pay a extra 3k a year, I will spend £150k on a new property instead, and change my child’s school’-totally unrealistic and not something any parent is really going to do!

This isn’t a great response, no one is ‘shouting’

That IFS report shows the author Luke Sibieta acknowledging there is ‘lots of uncertainty’

Some of which other bodies have responded to - grammar and private sector both

I’d say the Labour policy is leaning heavily on one economist point of view and for the impact on children it’s going to have, I don’t think that’s enough.

@EasternStandard ,

‘This isn’t a great response, no one is ‘shouting’’

Well there are a fair few emotional and vindictive posts (like the poster who will give up giving to charity to fund the extra). Thank you for grading my post at a gamma minus; from you that is a great compliment.

Below is an interesting link to an economist article which considers all sides of this.

They are pretty much with me. Both sides are way too invested, it won’t be a massive impact either way.

https://www.economist.com/britain/2023/10/31/do-labours-plans-for-britains-private-schools-make-sense?utm_medium=cpc.adword.pd&utm_source=google&ppccampaignID=18156330227&ppcadID=&utm_campaign=a.22brand_pmax&utm_content=conversion.direct-response.anonymous&gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI65vz75LihAMVcJVQBh1BzAP8EAMYASAAEgKcfvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

And one might suggest that you are either not understanding the points made on this thread...or you're being deliberately obtuse if that is how you choose to summarise what has been said. People are simply pointing out the practical implications in relation to their own set of circumstances.