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”

In my experience a huge amount of what schools offer is down to the ambitions and desires of the SLT and HT.

I know the HT at ours kept looking at the Public School and indies next door and what they had and has worked extremely hard at getting as many opportunities for his students. To the extent that many parents at those indies also now apply to his school.

Huge amount of outreach between the 3 indies and 3 comps in the area and sharing of facilities and joint project days.

I saw this at Primary level as well - Royal Opera Company in to do teaching sessions, Globe theatre turned up to do workshops. The HT was extremely determined to find out what was on offer and snap it up. Many other schools in the same area just didn't seem interested. She also worked out what parents did and could offer and wasn't scared to ask for talks, company sponsorship etc.

So the inequalities in state schools are not just down to funding - they're also down to the ambitions of the senior leadership. Granted it's a lot easier in London or big cities where you have theatres, museums and big businesses on the doorstep.

Ah that's my bad, I miss read your post.

The UCL data says that the participation rate is close to 0 in every income decile outside of the top one. The graph is very clear that this is in each income percentile up until the 90th?

"My point is that UK is becoming a very small minded country hating any success."

It really isn't, at all. This is just a trope, its also trotted out when tax raises of any kind are proposed.

It's not a trope, it's happening. This article says we lost 3,200 HNW people last year. How many more before the non-dom tax hits net negative revenue?

The U.K's super-rich are in 'panic mode' and are fleeing the country to shelter their money from election hit | Fortune Europe

"This article says we lost 3,200 HNW people last year. How many more before the non-dom tax hits net negative revenue?"

Isn't much of the research on non-doms that they aren't actually all that beneficial to the economy? I've certainly read some conflicting points.

Do you believe in trickle down economics?

You don’t know how government works. The attorney general will not be developing this policy. It doesn’t really matter if they’re not briefed on it three weeks before the election. Also the education minister and HMRC ministers will get excellent advice from their civil servants to ensure it’s workable.

What do you mean non-doms aren't actually all that beneficial to the economy???

They are supposed to pay £5.23bn to feed and cure us all?!?! Labour must use their migration force to stop non-doms leaving!

Or hang on, they can slap 120% VAT on PS instead? and reject any school places to PS kids who want to move to state. This will teach them

@nearlylovemyusername

As far as I'm aware, the non-dom tax was actually also nicked by the Tories. The information about them not being that beneficial to the economy was based on their status before any changes.

Brexit was given as a reason for non doms leaving before too.

Please, @Aladdinzane , what can I do for you to share a hint of which school? you're fascinating 😁
Just a little something to do my guess work?

Here's my article on non-doms
(1) On non-doms...and ceding the moral and intellectual ground (substack.com)

And here's a couple of good ones on trickle down economics. No, I don't believe in it, because it's a term confected by people who don't get economics. If you were a remotely serious economist, you wouldn't ask me that question.

The way people use "trickle-down" stems from having read too much derivative Keynes and not enough actual economics (Keynes, for all his millions of tedious words, never having a theory of production in his so-called "general theory")

"One thing I’ve learned is that when anyone says your position amounts to trickle-down economics, there’s not much else they are willing to discuss."

The Trumped-Up Myths Behind "Trickle-Down" Economics | Mises Institute
Government Redistribution Is the REAL Trickle-Down Economics | Mises Institute

@MrChips

I didn;t say I believed in trickle down economics nor you, but many people who claim the benefits of non-doms do.

Interesting article, we could have a discussion about the Laffer, and that there is evidence out there that shows that behaviour does change, but its at far higher tax rates than most think.

"If you were a remotely serious economist, you wouldn't ask me that question"

However shit like that just makes me want not to bother. I'm extremely competent at my job and in my subject knowledge, I but you continue to denigrate me, MN even delete your posts yet you continue.

Can you come back to me with evidence of your 2-3 % of children in the 2nd and 3rd deciles of income are privately educated?

Something I think has not been discussed enough is that research has shown that moving between schools has a very negative effect on students. John Hattie's visible learning (https://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/) lists the effect size of moving schools as -0.34. It's one of the worst things you can do to a student - in terms of the size of the effect, it ranks between between corporal punishment and depression.
It's a very curious thing that a prospective government thinks they can raise standards through a policy that will have a negative effect of this size on tens of thousands of students. It says they think those particular children are acceptable collateral damage.

I am confused.

"Tens of thousands" of students will not be moving according to evaluations done.

If you are posting this because your kids are having to move it's been covered multiple times on here that you should have expected this rise, created a financial buffer so you don't have to remove your kids and put them through the trauma you describe in your post.

There are around 560k children in private school. Taking the optimistic IFS estimate of 7% leaving, that’s 40k children.

The indication is many of those will be leaving at natural exit points? End of year 6 and 11? They will start a new school with all the other newcomers.

And my second point?

@Beouf

I agree and if its 7% its going to be at natural exit points, end of year 6 , possibly year 9, year 11.

Even the parents who are really pushed on budgets will make it work for a year or two.

Although, it might not reduce entrants, people who are expecting to send their children to PE in future will probably change their spending to make sure that they can afford this and have a similar discretionary income in future.

I'm just reading through this thinking - why are we a country that loves to "level down"? It seems that we hate success in this country. This isn't about raising standards (which it absolutely won't) - it's about punishing anyone that has any money whatsoever. We are a society where inverted snobbery is seen as a good thing - it does make me wonder if my kids will be treated badly if I send them to state school because we have a bit of money. It does make me think are we better off moving abroad - I've voted Labour my entire life (and would never vote Tory) but I just can't support this.

I agree. the tory fraud of levelling up is being replaced by the Labour reality of levelling down. I have also mostly voted Labour in the past, and never tory, but I just can't support this. I can't support national service for 18 year olds either. A choice between bad and worse is no choice at all.

Research shows that countries which are more equal tend to be happier. I think having such an unequal education system massively contributes to this. Yes, the state system is massively varied but at least everyone is in the same education system. Yes, people buy access through housing, and I think that's wrong, but at least everyone is in the same system.

I'd support measures to enable children to finish their education (schools could actually do this by means of bursaries etc equivalent to the VAT for parents who would really struggle) because I'd prefer children didn't suffer disruption, particularly students who really struggled in mainstream.

Yes, people buy access through housing, and I think that's wrong, but at least everyone is in the same system.
@CoffeeCup14

It may be the same system but state schools vary enormously so there’s just as much inequality in the system.
It’s like saying NHS hospitals are in the same system but the care varies a lot between hospitals.

"Yes, people buy access through housing, and I think that's wrong, but at least everyone is in the same system."

Except that it's not - DD's comp offers free horse riding lessons and has around 40 different ensembles, orchestras, choirs and bands. Vast numbers of GCSE and BTEC options and arrangements with the neighbouring indies to use their facilities and expertise.

DN's comp in another part of the UK has one art option, no BTECs and no music. Extracurricular offer is slim.

Both rated Outstanding, world of difference.

DC does an extra curricular on a Saturday at a local private school together with kids from all over the area. Parents there were saying that the private school has had to cancel the usual mock Election they run because so many of the children are too upset and their parents stressed about this VAT. Well done Starmer and his Merrymen! The teachers apparently feel kids should not be taught to vote on a single issue even if it really affects them directly! What a mess!

@Aladdinzane - is your school running a Mock Election?

Interestingly I asked my 10 year old what their opinion was. Response: this is a stupid policy because most people don’t care about it but those who are affected directly will now vote against that particular party based on it. Straight out of the mouths of the babes…

Spot on. DDs school has been holding a mock election, usually a fair few kids stand as Labour candidates (cos you know we aren't all Tories despite what some on here believe). This year zero Labour candidates. Well done Labour, alienating the voters of the future too.
Labour know all this, they know all of the arguments against the policy, but fundamentally they just don't care.

Don't think Labour have alienated that many voters with this policy!

I went to private school and have voted Labour all my life. The youth you speak about might be brighter than you give them credit for and not just be about the policies that benefit them in the moment.