VAT on school fees (you have to read this!)

[EverythingAllatOnceAllTheTime]

Government’s private schools VAT raid ‘could cost taxpayer £1.8bn’

Parents who are forced out of sector are likely to work less or even quit jobs, according to think tank research.

Adam Smith Institute.

“Not to derail this thread but blaming a party not in power for trying to mitigate the consequences of an inept government is hardly the issue.”

Hmm, let’s be a little more honest here. If Covid had never ever happened, Boris Johnson would most likely still be in power. He was far more popular than overly privileged left leaning Oxford types would like to give him credit for.
I personally massively dislike this self serving man who has gone through strings of women. But I do believe honesty is required. And I strongly believe that Government needs far more true life representation and even if Angela Rayner is a colourful choice, I am very happy that she is there given the other members of Cabinet. Oxford university and the cerebral view of life unfortunately is the biggest bubble of them all.
I would love to see a far more representative and less one way or another Government that could truly represent the needs of the people as a whole.
The privileged elite are taking the brunt of people’s dissatisfaction but targeting their children is entirely misguided and utterly amoral. Anyone with true principles should be ashamed.

@pintofsnakebite
“It is also accepted that the fact that there were no women in the room when those decisions were made had disastrous consequences for families and children in terms of childcare, domestic violence and single parent families.

Whatever her GCSEs, Angela Rayner would have been a godsend at that table n”

I am not sure. She would have been conflicted between her role as a woman/mother vs her role as a unionist. But it is another prime example of why we need representatives from all walks of life governing the country.

All children deserve to stay in their schools, their parental wealth either way should never be a consideration for politicians

Why do all children deserve to stay in their schools if their parents can't afford the fees? That's the whole ethos of private school isn't it? Not rich enough = can't come in.

Why don't John the cleaner's children deserve to be in private school too? What excludes them? Parental wealth of course.

Parental wealth is the whole issue - the government are targeting those who are most able to pay, and who should have been paying tax if this was a fair society. It makes sense to tax something that is the sole preserve of the richest people in society.

“Parental wealth is the whole issue - the government are targeting those who are most able to pay, and who should have been paying tax if this was a fair society. It makes sense to tax something that is the sole preserve of the richest people in society.”

@CeruleanBelt - the Government are not taxing those with the most wealth. The VAT will apply to all the parents in the private sector, regardless of their actual income/wealth or SEN of their DC.

If this was an education tax on the richest, then make it an education tax on the richest, define it by people’s actual income and wealth!

I have no idea how anybody could possibly provide such evidence. I honestly don't see how it can be anything but forgery or mistake...

CurlewKate
It’s in the Telegraph now ‘Prove you can’t afford private school fees, council asks parents’ is the headline.
According to the article ‘Anita Cranmer, the council’s cabinet member for education and children’s services, said: “We believe this wording was taken from an individual correspondence rather than being a formal policy and we apologise for the choice of language’

The article doesn’t say why this particular family was singled out in this way.

I agree. I'm an additional rate tax payer and I would much prefer to see that rate increased a bit than vat be added to school fees - because it is much fairer. I have friends earning more than me who send their kids to state school - so they are costing the tax payer more and contributing nothing more to it.

“I agree. I'm an additional rate tax payer and I would much prefer to see that rate increased a bit than vat be added to school fees - because it is much fairer. I have friends earning more than me who send their kids to state school - so they are costing the tax payer more and contributing nothing more to it.“

The other point, of course, if you actually care about education and children is that if they do introduce a specific education tax on all, then they will actually have to improve state schools and spend it on state schools.
So why anyone who actually cares about state schools would dispute this, is beyond me.

Our plan is to switch to state grammar at 11. At which point, we'll be high earners, paying no tax on education. Whilst there will be people with SEN kids who are struggling to pay fees, who will be expected to pay VAT on top. It's hardly a fair system.

It's hardly a fair system where fee paying and grammar schools exist at all though...

Grammars are meant to be for children who learn st a faster pace. It’s hardly their fault if adults game the system or don’t come up with a fairer entry system.

It’s such a shame that all these discussions are never focussed on what is in the best interest of the child,

lolly792 · Today 21:29
It's hardly a fair system where fee paying and grammar schools exist at all though..

Its hardly a fair system when some people send their dc to comprehensives but can afford to pay for tutoring…

I don't agree at all that grammars need a 'better' entry system. The entire premise- that you decide at age 10/11 whether a child is suitable/ unsuitable for a heavily academic schooling or not - is flawed.

Gaming the system or not with grammars, we all do what we think is best for our children.

Yes, it is the governments job to do its best for all children, because individuals will always prioritise their own, as they should.

For the majority of kids who get into grammars easily, it is evident earlier than 11 that they are brighter than most.

Discussions around selecting at 11 vs 13 vs 16 can be endless. 11 was chosen to avoid the puberty stage when many do not focus optimally and have major growth spurts/rebellion.

“Yes, it is the governments job to do its best for all children, because individuals will always prioritise their own, as they should.”

Yet more flawed thinking. All parents prioritising education in whatever way they can, are doing the best for society, they are most definitely not depriving other kids.
Just because the system puts kids against each other in exams and creates competition does not take away from the fact that all parents striving for their children is an inherent social good.

It’s literally the basics of modern economics that the better educated a society is, the more wealth is created. The government can reallocate that wealth later on via progressive taxation which they already do massively anyway, but to limit educational opportunities is complete madness.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that, just the assumption that private or grammar schools are the best way to deliver it

If the concept of private schools and grammar schools aren't fair, abolish them.

You can’t apply for a state school place when you are moving house until you are actually living in the new area, its not possible to do in advance

Children's books are also inherently unfair.

The biggest differences to a child's educational achievement have been shown to be having an educated mother and having their own books in their home.

So it's obviously necessary to abolish children's books.

And to be safe, we'd better abolish education for women, to avoid the unfairness of some children having an educated mother.

Good news - you could just move to Afghanistan: your ideal society already exists there!

You appear hell-bent in thinking that life is, or should be - egalitarian. Well, it isn’t.

You want to tax private schools because you want to level the playing field for all children - and yet, the parents of many of those children will provide extra-curricula support and opportunities that existing parents cannot afford, or they will price out other parents by moving catchment area.

What next - luxury cars (because they provide some kids with more safety protection), large houses (an excessive number of bedrooms, too large for a child etc).

Labour’s targeting of children is utterly reprehensible, and I suspect is a smokescreen for many with a much wider agenda, premised on simple envy.

You cannot and will not stop the desire of people wanting to better themselves - just ask the myriad people crossing the channel on inflatables.

"You cannot and will not stop the desire of people wanting to better themselves - just ask the myriad people crossing the channel on inflatables."

Of course not. We absolutely agree on that point.

And once again we've got the almost hysterical hyperbole! Even the implication from one poster that society is a binary choice between having private and grammar schools of life in Afghanistan! Oh and that tiresome refrain that anyone who disagrees with removing the VAT exempt status of private schools must be motivated by envy! Even though at the same time, people are being forced into paying hefty school fees because their children have special needs or can't cope in mainstream schools, which doesn't sound like anything to be jealous of to me.

There's never going to be agreement on this issue - and that's ok - but the regular attempts on a parenting site to inflate it into something bigger than it is, are tiresome. We're talking about a very small minority of parents who pay for the private system. 93% of children are in maintained schools. And despite all the posturing about hordes of private school kids suddenly descending into state schools, I doubt this'll happen on a significant scale; many many parents will keep their kids in private, they'll just be pissed off that their school fees will increase (which they usuallly do anyway annually, and in many cases above inflation, cos you know, they're a business.)

You cannot and will not stop the desire of people wanting to better themselves - just ask the myriad people crossing the channel on inflatables.

Well we will have to agree to disagree on whether private schools make someone a better person. I really don't think they do. Your posts in particular have convinced me of that, especially your most recent ones displaying your hatred for a working class woman, because being state educated means she's "uneducated", according to you.