What other education will have VAT added?

[BigCroc]

Will this VAT on private school fees be limited, or could it go on other stuff too? Thinking about tuition and swimming lessons.

Interested in this.

What about top-up fees for L3 BTECs in performing arts?

Or professional courses for post 18 that aren't degrees? Diplomas etc?

Sole traders are unlikely to be affected as likely under the VAT threshold (£85k), so individual tutors unlikely to be affected, but many larger businesses would be potentially.

I also think it is only fair that university fees should be taxed as well - you don’t need to go, so surely that is as much a luxury as private primary/secondary.

given how little is likely to be raised from those primary and secondary schools alone, the only way this policy will generate money is if they broaden the policy to encompass all forms of non-essential education.

It does seem that university tuition is going to need to go up, given the funding crisis in universities. Is there any practical difference between the government adding VAT to Uni fees and increasing their subsidy to universities versus just increasing fees?

Either way, they'll presumably increase loans to cover it (and recover only about 50% before the loans are written off... actually less than 50% since an increasing percentage of people won't earn enough to pay it back as the fees go up).

It would seem simpler to just increase fees wouldn't it?

Or do both, and keep the VAT for other purposes rather than giving it to the universities. Maybe also to schools since they're going to need significantly more investment than the private school VAT (which is likely to be negligible to negative within a decade)

The policy won't make money

VAT is already charged on private tuition by companies with turnover above the VAT threshold.
https://www.lawhound.co.uk/vat-and-tutor-fees-3-things-you-must-know/

I also think it is only fair that university fees should be taxed as well - you don’t need to go, so surely that is as much a luxury as private primary/secondary.

An individual may not need to go, in the sense that plenty of people do perfectly well without going. But the country needs people to go - we do need medical professionals, teachers, engineers, academics, scientists etc.

And if you want to, for example, become a dr or a teacher, there is no state funded alternative to choose. So the comparison with private and state primary/secondary education doesn't work.

I would argue that society also benefits when children are educated privately. There are lots of children poorly served by state, who have better outcomes in private. It also benefits society by removing the cost of education from the state.

Graduate incomes compensate the costs incurred at university- why should the taxpayer foot the bill to set someone up in a cushy career when we also have a shortage of workers for many jobs that require no university tuition.

Society doesn’t benefit when a few are educated privately - the rich benefit unfairly, further increasing the gap between rich and poor.
You already see rich parents complaining that universities are starting to take into account the elevation in grades students have gained by attending private schools. I think the tide is starting to turn towards a fairer education system. Removing the private school advantage is morally right.

So make it easier for more to access private education?

I would argue that any investment in education is net positive for society. Good education isn’t a scarce resource- the more we invest (by whatever means), the more we have.

if you want to focus on fairness and morality, there are bigger discrepancies within state in terms of quality of education than between state and private schools. Surely we should focus on making 94% of the educational system more equitable before we tinker at the margins?

@Labraradabrador
What is a 'cushy career'?

Do let us know. I quite fancy one.

@RoobarbAndMustard university is a choice, not an obligation or an entitlement- why should it receive a ‘tax break’ now that it has been decided education is in fact sometimes a luxury?

personally I believe any investment in education should be encouraged and not taxed, but if Labour want to treat anything beyond the state offering as a luxury they should at least be consistent and include university fees. After all, not everyone can afford to go to university, so it isn’t fair or equitable that those who can aren’t paying more.

I agree with @Labraradabrador that any investment in education benefits society. University maybe a choice but we don’t currently have enough in critical professions and need to tempt able students to enter them. The current university debt and prospective salaries are just not cutting it.

I am a doctor, my brother is a dentist (works for NHS in hospital), SIL a teacher and other SIL a pharmacist. Not one of us would recommend our career choice to our children because the end wage is not worth it when you look at the level of debt, wage and stress level of the role. These are traditionally professions where children have followed parent’s footsteps. We currently have major shortages in all of these professions - many we studied with having nothing to do with the profession any more. DH and BIL are in corporate roles (incidentally BiL trained as a dr and left the profession) and would recommend their careers - both their employers would support a school leaver through university and pay the fees.

In answer to the OP, the tax on private education does open the doors to taxing university and all childcare and I imagine this will be essential for the policy to make any money at all. We only need to look at history to see which government introduced university fees in the first place. It is where things are heading but people are currently so excited that they can ‘make the rich pay’ and ‘remove privilege’ that they are completely missing the bigger picture.

Yep...

DD's state comprehensive offers free horse-riding, archery and fencing, alongside a choice of 3 MFLs and Latin, music and drama departments that run 3 GCSE classes a year there is so much uptake and a range of 'scholarships' - we get free 1-2-1 music lessons in school as part of hers, others get maths coaching or sports coaching or extra art tuition as part of theirs.

DN's comprehensive offer basic art, not enough picked music to run a class and sport is basic netball/football.

I just hope all the mums don’t vote Labour or reform. Labour will be disastrous. I know we are all disappointed with the government but with the likes of Rayner and the unions, you should be careful what you wish for and Starmer will just say anything to get in and then get steered by the left.

There are already tuition fees for post-18 courses that are not degrees but are more advanced than level 3 (or A level). There are fees for HNDs and HNCs now for example (the fees are lower than those for degree level study though).

For private tuition through a large national company that is VAT registered, you will already be paying VAT on fees. One way to avoid this would be going to a sole trader who is an independent private tutor. The large national company could also apply to sports coaching etc.

@ThursdayTomorrow

Society doesn’t benefit when a few are educated privately - the rich benefit unfairly, further increasing the gap between rich and poor.
You already see rich parents complaining that universities are starting to take into account the elevation in grades students have gained by attending private schools. I think the tide is starting to turn towards a fairer education system. Removing the private school advantage is morally right

you do realise that ‘the wealthy’ will still be able to give their children advantages because…erm…they have the money to pay for it?

and where should society stop in a quest for ‘fairness’? because every child who had additional tutoring, ballet lessons, music lessons, sport coaching, goes to scouts etc etc has an advantage over the child that doesn’t. Shall we just ban every extra-curricular activity …..because in your opinion it’s morally the correct thing to do?

But one of the biggest predictors of success is having an educated mother. Also having books at home and being read to.

I think we're going to have to ban all children's books, and remove all children from parents with tertiary education and raise them in care - if we actually want to be fair.

It’s a jealousy tax. It won’t stop the ultra wealthy but as per usual it will squeeze the aspirational middle. Just like every other tax policy!

All those extra children that would have gone private or may have to leave private will end up in state, where’s this extra money coming from to teach these extra students? House prices will also rocket near good state schools. Then if private schools end up shutting I’d be interested to know how many of those teachers will move to state or will just leave teaching all together. I know 2 private school teachers (admittedly not a big sample size) and both left teaching rather than go to state.

Not my experience of private education. Many are not as rich as you think with some having contribution from grandparents and others being reliant on bursaries. Many choosing smaller, non selective private schools because their kids needs were not met in state schools. Its these families that will be effected by added VAT not the super rich who will just pay the extra.

All these extra kids will now need places at overcrowded state schools.

@strawberrybubblegum exactly. Let’s ban all educated mothers in the name of fairness.

Have you ever seen Starmer swimming?
He doesn't like swimming.
Certainly swimming lessons will be taxed.

Regardless of the moral position of VAT on education (like others on this thread I share the view that any additional barrier to education for any adult or child is a negative) I can't see how in law you can put VAT on one chargable educational product and not another, so exams taken by home educated pupils, uni fees, adult education, paid for courses will presumably all have VAT added. I don't see how this works for nurseries either, since they are covered by ofsted and considered education, the nursery attached to the prep school in our town is slightly cheaper than either of the other nurseries (not a significant amount) but will they be subject to VAT where the other nurseries aren't? Will all nurseries have VAT added unless they're state run (which is most of them surely for children under 4?). How can VAT be added to the outdoor ed centre trip for a child at an independant school, but not to the same centre for a child from a state school? It feels like this is a really poorly thought out policy that doesn't actually benefit anyone.

I agree with you. I would expect that they will say VAT on private education for all children over the age of four so that would presumably exclude nurseries. They are assuming that any teachers that might leave private schools will want to work in state education. However, many of these teachers have their own children at these schools which get a reduced Fee because they work there and they would certainly not want to go into the state sector where classroom sizes are significantly higher and there might not be vacancies in any case. With the additional activities such as one-to-one classes for example piano, guitar, singing, if those teachers are self-employed and are not vatable, they will not need to charge vat I would think. it might be that private schools change the way these people are supplied to the students to avoid the VAT. Then there are the holiday camps and I wonder if they would also become taxed. It is clear that this is a dreadful policy not thought out And if anyone agrees with that, I just hope they are not going to vote for labour but interested to hear other peoples thoughts on this.

It should include nurseries as they are still private education, as are universities - they are private. Otherwise it's just an envy tax.
Keir is pathetic. You'd think they would come up with an actual policy to improve education for everyone.

Sadly the Uber rich are going to benefit even more from this policy as the middle class and those who are saving every penny to pay the fees are being priced out and these people will now cost the tax payers money by moving to state . Private education should not just be for the super rich - Labour is taking away this from normal folks and more and mor places will just go to the super rich including overseas students.

Every child in private is saving the government money as the parents pay tax and not using tax payer funded money for education. It’s putting less pressure on the state system which can’t cope already.

i don’t disagree that the state sector needs more funding but it shouldn’t be at the detriment of the private school sector. UK should be looking at rising the level of education for its citizens as a whole so our country can benefit in the long run.