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”

@Hoppinggreen

And none of those things can be fixed by paying an extra 90k in 6 years on your mortgage?

Yeah, yeah.

my understanding is Labour, for some time have said the money raised would be for recruiting 6500 teachers, breakfast club and putting a mental health lead in every school. So I dint think it's so much they are spending the same sum 3 time, but splitting that sum three ways

However they do seem in a total mess about the charitable status /VAT thing as they do keep referring to charitable status.

This view that some people have of the state sector is very odd. It’s like me saying that all Private Schools are full of “I’ve more that you” snobs, more concerned with keeping seperate from the riff raff, with hugely judgmental parents” .. I’d be wrong wouldn’t I

A lot of people DO say that though.

Given this is the only policy that Labour have been clear on then I guess it's the only policy they are being criticised on.

What a ridiculous comment.

i am happy to pay tax, i just think that there are levels to what’s reasonable. Eg a large % of tax goes on child credits and benefits
etc so people can afford to feed their children themselves. Needing to then add additional taxes to feed them is insane

It’s not .. but was contextualising of for people

8% SEN .. though a lot of the new Cohort are coming through with EHCPs (though you don’t need an EHCP to be in the SEN cohort), so that figure will increase

@Anxiousheartbeat

And most of those people on tax credits etc are in work.

I pay shit loads of tax, I'd rather people at the bottom got it rather than give tax breaks to the people at the top.

It's Maths, isn't it. Money in minus money out.

It's not really something positive thinking can fix. What's your answer to increased poverty - euthanasia, slow starvation, or support? Or just magical thinking?

Because we have had stagnant wages since 2010 whilst prices have gone up 50%.

Pretending this isn't the financial reality of our nation is what makes it a ridiculous comment. Wake up to reality.

I think if you are privileged to live near a great state school then private school looks ridiculous.

I agree. I moved back to the uk, taking my DC out of a great school, and I was told there was no place for my then 8 year old in the 3 outstanding or good schools. I was offered the failing one. So I put them all in private to be fair.

I bought a house well in catchment for 2ndary. All the DC in my street go to this school. When I applied to year 7, I was offered my 4th choice of school. I mean WTF, 4th choice???

So, mine are still in private, and now they want 20% more off me, when they couldn’t offer me a place in the first instance.

No money for breakfast or teachers, but the DC in my next village get taxis paid for to/from school by the council as they can’t walk down country lanes to school and there is no public transport. I know SAHM’s in million pound houses who wave the taxis off each morning to their state secondary.

The 20% will just be pissed up the wall as usual.

Afternoon, everyone. We've moved this thread over to Education as it didn't seem to be an AIBU.

1. It will narrow access to good state schools by displacing families who can currently afford private but in future won't be able to- as these will use their means to access good catchment areas instead, driving less well-off families further out.
2. It will interrupt the schooling of thousands of children who are forced to move, including in exam years.
3. It risks damaging public services such as health in low socio-economic, rural and isolated communities where state education provision is poor- e.g. the GP in last week's Guardian who can currently just about fund school fees while serving a remote impoverished rural community but will move away to an area with better schools if her fees become unaffordable.
4. It will drive up class sizes in state schools
5. It will ruin the schooling and life chances of children in military families who currently use independent boarding schools for continuity of education (majority of these places are junior ranks not officers' children)
6. It will make independent schools the preserve of the rich and exacerbate social divisions.
7. It opens the door to charging VAT on other private educational provision such as nursery school, tutoring, swimming and music, University etc

@Aladdinzane

‘Read the rest of my post. Who are these private school parents who have 90k to spend on 6 years of schooling for one child at secondary but live in catchments of poor performing schools?’

Genuinely - us. We’d need to spend another 200k+ to get a house in the catchment area of the decent secondary nearby - and then pay interest on it. 90k sounds worth it.

You see I’m fine with paying VAT and was going to vote Labour but am not now because they are calling it a ‘tax break’. It’s not a tax break any more than not charging you VAT when you move house ifs a ‘tax break’, or VAT on your bank account is a ‘tax break’.

Thr VAT exemptions were set many years ago. Developed countries decided that it was right to tax certain things. Not what civilised countries ought to be doing. They decided not to tax education. Labour are adding VAT. They are not righting a past wrong. They are deciding that it is in the UKs interest to add VAT where no other developed country is adding VAT. That’s fine. Selling it as taking away a ‘tax break’. Is not.

Ah "Punish the children for the sins of the father". Delightful

And, of course, everyone's life follows a nice stable path. Redundancy, illness, divorce, death, none of these things could possibly change a persons financial status

@WaftherAngelsthroughtheskies and it does nothing to help state education. Maybe Labour are saying it is going to fund extra childcare places as they realise they are not going to find the 6500 new teachers the extra money (which some calculations show there isn’t really going to be that much) was originally going to pay for.

They are trying to sell it as getting rid of inequality and how amazing it will be for state education, and it is doing nothing of the sort. Big headline policy that doesn’t help education in any sector.

I don't think 'tax break' is a helpful way to describe it, because of all the connotations of the phrase. But it is accurate. As private education is a service provided for money, it's subject to VAT. A decision was made to exempt paid education (along with other things) from VAT. So it's not a decision to tax, it's a decision to stop exempting. But any deviation from standard tax for things which are paid for* is a tax break.

*The proper wording is 'provide goods and services for a consideration'. It's obviously massively more complicated but that's the essence of it.

So we don’t need to give a shiny shit that children are starving? Personally I couldn’t care less what the reasons are. If the parents are poor, working, feckless or simply don’t bother to feed their dc, it is never the fault of the children involved and they should never be left to suffer as a result. It’s only right that we ensure that children are fed and taken care of and I can’t understand any parent not having empathy for hungry children.

I don’t think the Labour Party have a fucking clue where this money (if any) is going to be spent, but ensuring the basic needs of the most vulnerable members of society are met should be a priority in any civilised society. It is never money wasted and it does benefit everyone.

I wonder if you think my mum should have been taxed on her hysterectomy that she had to get privately because the GP just didn’t care about her suffering.

Education is necessary and mandatory, whether private or not. Taxing it is regressive. Ditto healthcare.

@WaftherAngelsthroughtheskies To address your list:

1.No it won't, there won't be a mass exodus and those already living in the high priced houses ( almost all private school parents) will still pay the fee rather than sending their children to the local state. Private schools also have much wider catchment areas so the likelihood is that any impact of this will be defused by being across a number of state schools.

2 As said, this will have minimal impact and those in exam years will find the money to finish the year ( in fact the estimates are that only 15% will be passed on so makes it much more affordable).

3 scaremongering and giving one example does not make a good point.

4 Won't because those that leave will be spread across a range of schools. Only 5.5% are educated privately anyway and many schools ( especially in London) have falling rolls.

5 Military families don't pay for their schooling, the MoD does, expect a similar deal as for students where the LEA pays for SEN provision.

6 Over 90 percent of households who use private schooling are in the top income decile, they are already the preserve of the rich.

7 Doesn't open the door to charging on other education, as they are not compulsory and provided free elsewhere.

We aren't going to stand for your privileges to be protected anylonger.

Pay up.

I do wish Labour would only let people talk about this policy of the understand the issues, because they are not helping themselves. But Penny Mordant openly criticised Rishi Sunak during the debate (the reaction by Laura Kunesburg on Newscast to this was significant) and some of their policies are quite frankly bizarre.

I think providing breakfast in schools isn't a bad idea. There are logistics to consider, and should it all be free? But I think it would help a lot of parents.

Their actual parents are the ones that don't have empathy or a basic understanding of parental responsibility.

It's not the childrens fault, you're correct.

A very sad situation where taxpayers will be footing the bill for neglect.

Oh come on.

In principle I agree that people should consider their circumstances before having children. But once the children are here we can hardly let them starve. None of this is ever the child’s fault and rhetoric like this only serves to make children feel ashamed for something they have absolutely no control over. Children are vulnerable and they deserve our unquestioning support. I’d far rather my tax money was spent on tackling child poverty and inequality than a load of shoddy ppe or ventilators that never materialised.

I struggle to believe someone can’t afford toast or cereal.

Children shouldn’t feel ashamed and we should help but,
for the third time, spending money to feel ALL children when it’s a tiny % who actually need the help is not a good use of resources.

But also this.