Labour confused and arguing among themselves over VAT on school fees

[Another76543]

This policy is getting more ridiculous by the day.

We have the shadow Attorney General who doesn’t understand the basic concept that the VAT position and charitable status are entirely separate issues. She also doesn’t understand that it’s parents and not schools who will pay the charge.

“the question is, is it appropriate in these circumstances for schools, such as in Eton or Winchester or whatever, to be seen as a charity and that, therefore, they should not be paying VAT on the huge fees”

This statement is factually incorrect on two things.

She also seems to think that any money raised will be spent on breakfast for children. The potential money has already been allocated to new teachers. They seem to think they can spend the same money twice.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/emily-thornberry-labour-institute-for-fiscal-studies-education-secretary-winchester-b2559439.html

The Party are also now fighting among themselves over this proposal.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/emily-thornberry-bridget-phillipson-labour-david-lynch-london-b2559684.html#

“sign of divisions within Sir Keir Starmer’s party over the policy”

I don't agree with VAT in principle, but if they had started with a smaller amount - say 5% - and told people to prepare for increases up to 20% in, say 10 years, I would feel a lot happier about it. It would have shown some respect for people as citizens who might not always make decisions that align with government values, rather than just cash cows that owe everybody else.

higher earners aren't entitled to child benefit.

Oakandashsplash

Ok, thanks - I won't ask you how much you paid for the house 12 years ago.

@Mepop

"But what would you do with your £15000 a year fees you save if you send your child to a state school? Would you spend it? Then you would be paying VAT on those purchases and they would get more money"

A combination of:
Reduced hours
Private tutoring after school
More into pension
More into mortgage
Pay for Uni fees

@Scruffily well not for a while as any house purchase will be after uni - if it is even in the UK. . we’re encouraging our DC to leave the uk after education so no guarantee of income tax etc either. And we’ll have cost the state 7K for two years for sixth form. So I don’t think the state will get a net benefit from us.

Buy property close to good state schools - no VAT
Buy rental property - no VAT
Invest making use of ISA and JISA - no income and capital gains tax
make pension contributions for both parents and kids as well - attracting 20/40/45% tax relief
Of course a bit of extra money will get spend but the big ticket amounts will go into the above.

WhereIsTheFreakingSun · Today 11:17
both my kids go to private schools
**
I pray to God they bring VAT in so that those stupid yearly increases start getting regulated.
**
we're having an average 10% increase per year, they're absolutely taking the piss!
**
bring VAT on to get some effing control”

At last, some common sense.

Really, if VAT is going to tip you over the edge then don’t commit your children to independent schools.

It’s been on the cards for years. Astonishing that its not required already.

As parents trying to decide what to do with our DC's education I do find it an odd one. We're both higher earners (not massive but both 6 figures). So if we decide to go with state schools, people will be happy for us to be government funded and not pay any VAT. But if we choose private, and save the government funding our DC's education, people immediately say we should pay VAT. Not sure what we'll do but the concept is odd...usually on these threads the argument is - you're wealthy enough so you shouldn't get any nursery funding / child benefit...and yet here we're being encouraged to use government funding even though we can afford not to!

Why are we looking to fund parents who cannot give their children breakfast? Do they really not know this is their job?

They can earn £120,000 each and each pay £60,000 into a pension reducing their earnings to £60,000 and take child benefit.

Yes. The whole argument that 'the rich are getting a 20% discount on education' - I can't quite believe that intelligent MPs actually come out with this stuff. If you go the local state school you get an 100% discount, even if you're a millionaire - it's not means tested.

Do people actually do that? It's a problem with child benefit, though, I agree. They could probably raise quite a bit of money for schools by rewriting that particular rushed through, badly thought out bit of legislation.

Milk is expensive, but can they really not give their child a slice of toast? This is child neglect, right?

Not sure I agree about milk but honestly what is a parent thinking of not giving their child breakfast? Sorry but I just don’t understand the mentality,

Buy property close to good state schools - no VAT but SDLT
Buy rental property - no VAT but SDLT, income tax and CGT when you sell.

It might not seem like a lot of money, but we've been told not to donate cereal to food banks because you can only eat it with milk and milk is expensive. I'm not sure what's going on that people can't afford milk anymore. Perhaps it's all Maggie the 'milk stealer's' fault!

An Aldi pint of milk is £ 1.45 for 4 pints. I am sorry but if you cannot budget for milk there is something seriously wrong with you the parent and their judgement . There is also long life milk from food banks presumably?

Why not outsource everything to the school and the tax payer then?

What do you propose that those living in 1 bed temporary accommodation with no kitchen facilities store this milk in?

Milk can be left out. I lived in such a flat for three years when I was young and a carton of long life milk lasted 3 days in a cool dark place. Obvs cereal lasted too. 🙄

free meals needs to be prioritised for children who’s parents either don’t qualify for benefits (eg people on certain visas) or those who earn just above the threshold for benefits. People who get benefits shouldn’t get it because their benefit covers the cost of feeding the child.

This is one of the most callous things I've read on here.

If people cannot imagine a life where breakfast being available at school would just make life more manageable, they should consider themselves fortunate.

It's not just about cost, it's about a whole host of other factors - disability, an early start at work, a baby who keeps you up at night, a child who is reluctant to go to school but will go in more easily for toast in the school hall.

I'm not saying this should necessarily be a spending priority, but the attitude of some posters towards parents who are struggling is disgusting.

if there is a 10% drop in private school enrolment the policy doesn’t make any money. Beyond that and it actually costs more than it raises. If the point of introducing vat on education is to raise revenue (as stated by labour) then this is a really important part of the equation. Especially since enrolment has already dropped 3% since the policy was first analysed and Labour have since stated that a number of students (EHCP, state boarding) would be exempt. Even a modest impact on current families could tip this policy into negative.

You are not being unreasonable to want Labour to say what they really mean by VAT on private education.

Parents, voters need to know if that includes only private KS1-5, national curriculum? Or football coaching, remedial gcse maths, music lessons, tutoring for grammar schools, university fees? Early years? Special schools? Driving lessons? MBAs? All are private education.

At the moment it is all headline & no detail, which makes them look utterly untrustworthy.