VAT on school fees - High Court Challenge.

[EverythingAllatOnceAllTheTime]

Labour’s plan to impose VAT on private school fees in January faces a High Court legal challenge over claims it breaches human rights law.

Lawyers have written to HM Treasury arguing the policy discriminates against special needs children and has threatened court action if it is not dropped.

Showtime…

That’s the thing EST - many of these Labour apologists don’t actually say anything. It’s all p1ss and wind - if you will forgive the language.

I do think they are charities because relief if poverty is not the only type of charity.

To me, a charity is a business structure which can't make a profit and Is for its beneficiaries and offers publuc benefit. I believe education itself is a charitable activity. More so than a pro choice charity.

I do think some schools need to do more for thier public benefit aspect to maintain charity status and I think this is where Labour should have clamped down. Bursaries are one aspect but actually you can have much more effective outreach by partnering with a failing state school and doing lots of joint activities. I'm totally unmoved by 'we let them use the pool'

My son also goes to a charity SEN school, I appreciate that the VAT will be reclaimed by the LA, but the children at the school don't have a state provision available to them and they are some if the most vulnerable children in the country. It would take a very heard hearted person to see the wheelchairs and medical equipment and say this isn't charitable. There are some benefits to these schools not being run by the state.

So what next @EverythingAllatOnceAllTheTime - there must be another topic on "Education' where you can tap into people's insecurities and create an argument..or maybe get a bit of fresh air, buy a dog..just get out a bit more.

Do you have anything substantive to add, or is it simply more noise?

I know, why don’t you answer my question with respect to the economics?

Await yours.

"Please can you provide a detailed analysis of Labour’s projected economic benefit to the exchequer."

Whether this policy does or does not provide any economic benefit depends upon:
What percentage of pupils switch from private to state or what is more likely is what percentage don't start in Year 7 or Year12.
What percentage of pupils have had their fees pre paid?
How much will the schools claim back in VAT expenses.

In terms of the first point the IFS in their paper said that they expected very small numbers to switch but did not perform any actual analysis on this as part of their paper.
The Adam Smith Institute has estimated that the tipping point where the VAT policy becomes net zero tax generating (eg it raises say a billion but the additional cost of pupils switching to state, VAT reclaimed by schools) is where PS pupils are reduced by 10%.
Personally I think this is a tad high and my own analysis puts it at around 15% switching.

Ultimately nobody will know for sure on the reduction in number of PS pupils until after say 4 years.

That said what this thread has shown me is most of those in favour of the policy would on ideological grounds still be in favour of it even if it was net zero or even net negative tax generating.

This would mean that the government would collect less tax revenue meaning that either other taxes would need to go up or current spending on education cut.

This is ideological madness and reminds me of Brexit where leave supporters were happy to see a deterioration in living standards and face more difficulties travelling abroad just so they could put two fingers up to the Government and the EU.

Surely you had a choice at an earlier point in your life to make better provision for if you became ill or were unable to work,

Well if they try and dodge publishing hypothermia statistics next year a simple FOI request will bring them to light

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsfromhypothermia2019to2023

For reference - ONS for deaths, NHS England for admissions. The vast majority of both are people over 65yrs. I genuinely hope we don't see an increase but limiting the winter fuel allowance to only pensioners on less than £12K a year is seriously harsh. Clearly Keir doesn't believe in society any more than Maggie did.

QED.

Are you that naive?
You actually think everyone has the same choices to start with?

You're familiar with how to be patronising, I don't need to assume.

And here you are following @EverythingAllatOnceAllTheTime posts and threads.

No dog or fresh air?

The point is to discuss topics on mn not just lob in with attacks

It isn’t “ideological madness” to agree with a policy on principle rather than revenue/cost analysis.

For example, the death penalty. If it were reintroduced, you could do an analysis of increased appeal court funding and compensation for any wrongful deaths it caused, against decreased prison costs, and it might well be a cost effective policy. But no one would think that was the way to assess it.

Same with lots of things. Fox hunting - maintains the countryside, brings in revenue from hunts, but people find it repulsive. The royal family - brings in tourist revenue, but is a massive symbol of inequality and privilege. Remember, the monarch didn’t used to pay income tax and that was introduced after the Windsor fire and the annus horribilis

You would probably get on better with your argument if you didn’t condescend to those on the opposite side.

And I am a Labour voting private school parent, FWIW.

Fingers crossed OP.

That is why in my last post I clarified that the SEN issue was far from ideal but for me this isn't about that. It's about taxing people, not based on wealth or income, who don't use up a state funded benefit but expect them to pay more towards it. It's bonkers that we think that like this in this country - given that other countries don't tax education and give a credit if you use private education, I cannot see how it is anything other than inverted snobbery at play.

And ultimately, regardless of any ideological arguments, I do not believe it will be of economic benefit and will create a greater divide. I, for one, will not be using private secondary school fir my DC now and will be taking up two state funded places.

On the other hand, at least we'll be world leaders in something.

It isn’t “ideological madness” to agree with a policy on principle rather than revenue/cost analysis.

Good to hear you are happy to pay the 20% extra whilst using the system that you presumably think gives you advantage

However are you agreeing with pp that this will not bring in anything extra in funding?

How do Starmer's pledges work if he can't fund them? It won't be good politically for the party you voted for. No extra teachers or breakfast clubs for state and if it costs the taxpayer then it really is a fail.

In fact why does someone who so strongly believes in the ideology of this policy that they don't care about the funding argument use private schools at all?

It isn’t “ideological madness” to agree with a policy on principle rather than revenue/cost analysis.

It is because only 10 per cent of PS are elite in the way that the general public thinks them to be.
So you are willing to throw 90 per cent of small schools under the bus including swathes of DC with SEN, teachers, staff etc.
That is not fair or equitable and flies in the face of the principles of many Labour voters too, once they discover what may actually have been done.

As for the charitable acts carried out by the top private schools - again, they are heavily involved in state schools but then again, some people in the Labour Party may see this as “interference”.

When the aim is to level down for all, that argument makes sense.

There is an inherent contradiction - if there is no funding argument and the tax raises no money at all, it is by definition a discrimination of children.
There is common law case law to prove that education is a social good.

In the absence of an economic case, proponents are literally arguing that private school are a social negative. Like cigarettes.

And the reason we have common law, the judiciary and the Human Rights act is precisely to prevent authoritarianism and people imposing their controlling ideologies on others.

I maintain - this case is an important precedent. I hope it is heard.

Thanks.

Do you otherwise have anything substantive to add please?

They have nothing substantive to add - because the “stick it to the rich” is not working out as planned. The stick is to “rich” pensioners is imploding as we speak. It was well known from the start that making WFA means tested would cost more than it would bring in. So when the economic argument collapses, well it all collapses.
Voters are far more astute now than they were even 10 years ago. Distrust in politicians is at an all time high. Nobody can afford to pull the wool over the general public’s eyes anymore.

No and no, but out of those that I grew up with, there (poor) choices strongly influenced there current situation and inability to prepare for the future. Life seems to let you make one or may be two mistakes but if you keep making poor choices then there are poor outcomes.

A few have been to/are in prison. Few addicts, one died at 27 from a drugs related heart attack. Some are grandparents in there late 30/ early 40s. Couple died in car accidents through misadventure. Several emegrated, some worked in MC'ds ( as I did) and are still flipping burgers at 40+

I think so Araminta.

One only has to look at the right they are having on the WFA and now the non-dom changes too….

Ha ha. So funny... Yes I did. I did make provision. 18 months emergency fund. Which worked against me.... Does make me wonder why I pay so much tax.

It's very significant to point out your interesting way of debating. 😵‍💫