Vat Question????????

[Anoth]

Can I ask a silly question??
We have been given our school fees for 24/25 academic year now for the school my daughter attends.
My question is if labours policy comes in half way through an academic year will the schools be allowed to put the fees up for the remainder of that academic year? Eg if we start paying X amount on September and then labour get in and introduce the added vat in October. Will the fees go up in Jan of that academic year? Normally fees remain un changed for the whole of the academic year once fees have been published but I understand this is a strange situation!
Just wanted to know if I need to prepare to save more for 24/25 fees just in case or will these that are now published still remain until the end of July 25??.
Thanks!

I will await the response saying that the state of the economy then was absolutely nothing to do with the Labour Party, but that the current state of affairs lies solely at the feet of the Conservatives…….!

‘state education is not free.

I suppose if you insist on being pedantic about it - but if YOU who claim that paying VAT on a business service is going to mean you can’t afford school fees move your child to a state school, you will no longer pay fees.

Both DP and I are high earners, we pay a lot of tax some of which goes toward the state education system. We do not pay school fees in top of that. There are children in my DCs school who parents pay little or no tax, but those children still get to attend the same school. Free to them.

I think we had already established Quatty that you are in the privileged position of being able to send your children to a good state school that meets their needs.

It’s not about being pedantic. It’s why all too many families don’t place any value on a good education; because they see it as “free”. It’s partly why many schools are in the state they are. As a country, we need to change our mindset about how we think about state education. Perhaps then, things might start to improve and fewer people will see the need to use the private system.

‘Or is a troll.’

I - having worked in education in one way or another for most my adult life - have a VASTLY different view to you on private schools - or appear to. Doesn’t make me a ‘troll’.
If I believe that a child attending a half decent state school has a much richer, more well rounded, competitive and real experience then I do. If I consider, having worked with them, private schools to be businesses and therefore liable for businesses taxes, charges, VAT and NOT charities then I do.
It’s not being a troll, it’s not politics of envy or jealously or whatever. Just a difference of opinion.

These schools are ‘independent’ and ‘private’ so when it comes to increasing fees or charges they are free to do so. As evidenced by the almost doubling of some in the last 20 years or so. I suppose if you want your child to go somewhere with it’s own zoo, ‘world-class’ cricket pitches, Olympic sized pools, horse riding lessons, and theatres that wouldn’t look out of place in the Westend,
someone needs to pay for it.

And yet again you show your complete lack of understanding about the private sector with this comment:
I suppose if you want your child to go somewhere with it’s own zoo, ‘world-class’ cricket pitches, Olympic sized pools, horse riding lessons, and theatres that wouldn’t look out of place in the Westend,

Most private schools are NOT like this! Most parents choose them because: local state schools are dire, military families or SEN.

If state schools are so fantastic then why the 100s of threads on here saying what a terrible state a lot of them are in?

You claim to work in education, well so do I and that's the exact reason we chose private.
Nothing to do with the facilities.
Please remember that most of the population doesn't live in London!

if you want your child to go somewhere with it’s own zoo, ‘world-class’ cricket pitches, Olympic sized pools, horse riding lessons, and theatres that wouldn’t look out of place in the Westend,someone needs to pay for it.

The majority of private schools do not have these things. A lot of private schools have facilities far less impressive than some academy schools. Those private schools which do have those things tend to be the wealthier public schools, those who have a lot of international students and parents who are less likely to be affected by a fee increase. Those schools will also be able to claim back input VAT spent on such capital projects.

This is the point. Private schools without those facilities will be hit proportionately harder by VAT.

Most private schools are NOT like this! Most parents choose them because: local state schools are dire, military families or SEN.

Exactly this. You only have to read other threads to realise how awful some state schools are. There is thread after thread with parents wanting to appeal against their allocated state school. Other threads show the desperation of some state school teachers. There is almost daily news about violence and behaviour problems.

Vast swathes of the country are being failed by the state school offering. Not everyone has access to a state school which will serve their child well.

We need to concentrate on improving the state sector. Attacking the private sector is not going to help with that.

It's not a difference of opinion, or pedantic, to point out that state schools aren't "free". It's the truth. They are paid for by taxpayers.

And it's why this debate is so astonishingly banal. "look at those tax breaks over there" while studiously ignoring the 100% taxpayer funding over here. Once you grasp the truth (I live in hope) you'll realise that independent schools are terrific for the public finances, society and for state education.

As for the stereotype you seek to peddle. What do you think is the median level of school fees? I know the answer....see if you can look it up. Then, how many " zoos, ‘world-class’ cricket pitches, Olympic sized pools, horse riding lessons, and theatres that wouldn’t look out of place in the Westend" do you think there are in the 50% of independent schools below the median?

The independent schools near me do not have zoos. Any cricket pitches they have are, at best. pretty average - certainly not "world class". Only one of them has a swimming pool and it is less than 20% of the size of an Olympic pool. None of them offer horse riding lessons. None of them have theatres, let alone theatres that wouldn't look out of place in the West End.

However, it is quite clear that Quatty is a class-warrior who is not interested in facts that don't suit her agenda.

My DN private school has no swimming pool, cricket pitch, or all weather pitch, keeps no animals, has no theatre. In terms of facilities, my DC state school is significantly better equipped. DN school rents facilities from the council for swimming/all weather pitches/school shows at a commercial rate.

The best equipped independent school locally does have a swimming pool; it is kept at a higher temperature with steps and hoists to get in. They do have horses - for therapy. No cricket pitch but have just installed some play equipment for their older teenagers - swings, slides etc. Costs around £100,000 per annum for a 52 week boarding place. I am sure local councils who pay for the specialist placements there will have no trouble stumping up another £20,000 to hand over to the exchequer…

I think if we are going to tax parents who send their DCs with SEN (milder or not) 20% VAT on school fees who are not rich per se then we should definitely also make people like @Quatty contribute to state education. Because as he or she has said they are high earners so why not raise funds for state schools that way too? So all people with DCs in state schools that are rated good or outstanding (basically those that people move into catchment for), let’s tax all the parents there as well? How much would be a “fair” amount. That could then go into a huge pool to improve state education all around the country.

What you're saying is what the Adam Smith paper indicates: if you want money for state education it should come from general taxation, not by taxing the education sector / families that already pay disproportionately in various ways.

Lot of Labour voters and MPs in the group you just described though. much better to target (1) more likely conservative voters (2) the group that Labour has been targeting for class warfare for decades.

Don't forget private schools paid VAT when they built all those facilities. Classrooms, science labs, swimming pools, theatres...even zoos, if there's a school that has a zoo.

I read that if child has an ehcp then will be exempt for vat and children in those very high cost placements paid for by the la tend to have ehcps. I think the Sen kids it will hit harder are the milder ones, ones who the la are more likely to turn down for an ehcp, ones that don’t need a lot of extra accommodations just maybe small classes and a smaller setting, for this type of child often parents will chose to pay themselves for a small private school rather than spending years fighting the la through tribunal for an ehcp

Lots of schools have said they won't pass it on (some or all of it) to parents though (ie they will reduce fee's so the price effectively won't go up)

That's interesting, has that been said publicly or are these informal conversations? I'm surprised many schools can cut their costs so substantially. Would be interested in any links thank you.

I've heard of one!!

https://www.colfes.com/app/uploads/2018/10/181018-RFR_Times-1024x525.jpg

Probably more so through cutting bursaries/community work than costs as such.

Ampleforth did say this, and then rowed back.
Ampleforth parents can't be shielded from Labour's private school VAT raid, warns head in U-turn (telegraph.co.uk)

Giggleswick still seems to be saying it
Fees - Giggleswick School

Adcote says so but I heard a rumour the Head received a rollicking from her Governors.

So that's two. Then you have this Nearly all private planning fee increase, Telegraph poll reveals 78% saying >10% increase due to VAT, presumably plus inflation, and with reduced scholarships and bursaries. 95% saying "a fee increase"

So it's "lots" meaning two, versus 95%. Brilliant.

I mean it's 2 that you've heard of and you haven't even quoted the one I put a link for...

Not saying all or even most will be able to.

Just some people seem confused about the fact that just because the government is imposing VAT it doesn't automatically mean 'parents will have to pay it/all of it'.

You provided that link after I posted, thanks for the update. So "three", which you describe as "lots".

"Lots of schools have said they won't pass it on".

"three" vs. 95%, being "more than two thousand three hundred have said they will pass it on". It's not a compelling point, I think we'll all agree.

Thanks but isn't that from 2018? It says Conservative plan - looks as if there was a possibilty that they would suggest it but it never got very far https://independentleader.co.uk/private-schools-reject-fees-vat-plan/

In any case I am not sure he is saying that his school wouldn't pass it on, just that they would cut bursaries to try to limit what was passed on.