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”

@Palomabalom

They really aren't.

Go ask the Tories about their national service plans?

Their manifesto must have made a change. It’ll be interesting how the extra teachers and mental health support are going to be funded, as the VAT was funding them originally. The projected tax take is only around 1% of the state education budget to start with. They seem to be making it stretch very far.

As many people have pointed out, there are more than two parties standing for election.

"The projected tax take is only around 1% of the state education budget to start with. "

State education budget is different to schools spending. I believe the projected tax take is around 2.5% of the total budget but can obviously be focused into some areas.

Education is a charitable purpose in its own right; a well-educated population benefits society as a whole. Surely this is obvious?

But FYI, Labour is not planning to remove the charitable status from private schools.

Whenever private schools are discussed, it is implied that everyone is rich if you send your child to one. The examples politicians use always seems to include Eton.

Nowhere have I read any comment about private schools that are specialised and you earn a place solely on non-academic ability. Music schools/dance schools/bursaries for high achievement in sports. These are normally paid for via scholarships, parents doing fund-raising, local businesses sponsoring a gifted child, sport associations providing help towards funding. The additional 20% could make these sort of educational establishments even more elite and limit opportunities for those talented children from less well-off backgrounds. Do we want talented musicians, dancers, sportsmen/women winning Olympic medals? If yes, then don’t penalise those parents supporting their children to pursue those dreams. Also, what about private universities that again, produce talented individuals in the arts. As that’s education, are they included too?

I’m not a Tory voter and never sent my children to private school. I’m against the policy on principle as, to me, it’s an ill-thought out policy based on envy. The hatred and nastiness this policy is generating is creating more of a class divide to gain votes, and I therefore don’t trust them as a party.

Currently researching what independent candidates we have.

I own a rental property close to an outstanding state school in an area where a lot of children go private.
I have decided to sell up before the next government decide to punish landlords -because of course all landlords are evil bastards. What I wasn’t expecting isthat we are getting a lot more interest in the property than expected and the agent thinks because the school is now more of a draw even than .
So there will be one fewer rental property available, a well-off family will save school fees and get their DC into the best primary in the area and probably sell it on to another similar family as soon as their eldest has a place.
Well done, Labour.

@Aladdinzane you have obviously never lived rurally. Many towns only have one secondary school

I do not care if you think is horseshit. I really hope my kids are never educated by someone like you. However, I doubt you are even a teacher. As for the in and outs of a parent navigating the schools in London you are clueless. You may be a northerner with a chip on your shoulder. That is more like it.

@Gondoliere

It is horseshit, and the kind of thing parents say to themselves because they are looking to justify spending all that money on private schooling, even making excuses to themselves for buying their kids privilege.

The results from London schools show that London kids out perform students from almost any other area, even the PP kids ( of which there are more than average in every London borough) out perform those outside of the capital.

London schools really are very good.

No chip on my shoulder at all.

@crumblingschools "you have sobviously never lived rurally. Many towns only have one secondary school"

I don't know of MANY towns with only one secondary school at all, I'd also question how many schools could support one secondary state and one secondary private.

@Aladdinzane The results are one reason. Parents send kids to private for several reasons. No one is taking away your great performing state school from you or whoever wants to use them. I want a choice and this is the beginning towards the erosion of private schools. This is to pander and appease people like you. A divisive hateful policy with not clear benefit than to win voters like you. If you really care about kids you should be ashamed to support this policy. More likely is another agenda.

Genuinely intrigued what does make you an economist if it's not reading Economics at Oxford, an MSc in Economics from the London School of Economics, working for the Bank of England and then the Treasury.

is there more to it than that - because so far it's reading a bit like the Blackadder 'more cunning than a fox... sketch...'

Absolutely- I didn’t say Tory did I? I think you’re developing tunnel vision if you think it’s a choice of exchanging one bunch of crap for another bunch of shite. There’s more than two horses in the race.

So you are happy with charitable status ending as per Lib Dem policy? So schools pay business tax.

It is cheaper than moving house!

No, I know you didn’t. My comment was in response to another poster who quoted you. That poster said “Go ask the Tories about their national service plans?”, suggesting that the only other voting option was Tory.

@twistyizzy

Really? If you add up 90k for one child just for year 8-13 for high school?

I really think some private school parents will say anything to justify it to themselves.

I don't think she worked for the Treasury. She worked for the Bank of England in her early/mid 20s, then for HBOS - where her team messed up according to the Guardian's timeline up thread. She became an MP at the age of 31.

Sorry OP that was who I was referring to but forgot to tag! Apologies

Years 7-11 as we were only going for secondary years.
£150K to move to a house in good catchment. 75K fees (without VAT).

You really can't see past your own preconceptions can you?

But you keep the house and pass on the wealth to your children when they need a house deposit one day.

Not if you factor in potential care home fees!
I don't think anyone should bank on having a home to pass on any more.
Plus we are hopefully giving her the skills to afford her own home.

I am slightly curious, given the apparent loathing towards children who have attended private school, how they'd be received by some PPs (as teachers/parents) if these children moved into their state school. With opened-arm welcome and not a hint of righteous prejudice, I'm sure.

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?