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…

If you want to argue the merits of taxing education there will be ample time when the ISC launches their own legal challenge in October. That challenge argues that the PS VAT policy breaches the ECHR in it’s targeted nature, meaning if VAT on education is being implemented then it’s being implemented across the board including nurseries, universities, swimming lessons.

Ok so kindly comment on Labours numbers with respect to the benefit to the exchequer from that Vat on Ps fees.

Let me know if you need a hand.

I don't really see an issue with adding VAT to any of those things either tbh.

Money and pay and pensions are secondary if the working environment causes burn out and health problems. The former is necessary but cannot succeed without the basics, which is the latter!

Who says the only alternative is "all these tribunals"? Yes, it might happen; but plenty of tribunals get conceded and, once a child has a reasonably quality EHCP it tends to make it much more difficult for the LA to change the placement or produce a poor Plan. In particular, if the EHCP names a school - which could be the very one the mother is now paying for - then the child will be left there at least up to the next phase change. And the school will provide for the child's needs, so Kent won't be struggling to meet the EHCP requirements.

The vast majority of pupils with EHCPs have parents who don't and wouldn't pay school fees. Are those parents short-changing their children by choosing to make their local authority comply with their statutory duties?

I don't actually care what labour do with the money, I just want to see private school parents no longer being subsidised (they are subsidised by not having to pay VAT on what is essentially a luxury, and yes I know not all luxuries are subject to VAT but they should be).
Again, debating isn't making little sly digs at anyone not in your echo chamber.

My friend and her husband refuse to work and both live off of benefits and yet they still argue thst I ought to pay VAT to fund their DC's school places at an outstanding school. Thst is who is being subsidised. Not me. I pay 45% tax and don't use state funded resources.

You have just amply demonstrated what most of us suspected.

This raid and others, is purely an ideological,
beggar-thy-neighbour, nose-spite-face measure.

It represents much of what is wrong with the UK.

Why on earth would you want to make education harder to achieve? Not a big user of Drs, Denists, teachers, solicitors?

It is possible for more than one thing to be subsidised.
I would also be surprised if you don't use any 'state funded' resources though.

Why on earth do you think that comment even makes sense?

nurseries, universities, swimming lessons.

Why on earth would you want this? You'd make it harder for lower income children to get what they need. Madness

Are you just pro tax no matter what? Why? Are you in the public sector out of interest, or reliant on the state

What would be most interesting is if the original researcher at the IFS, Luke Sibieta, who the Labour Party appear to be happy to throw under the bus as well, were to comment on the SEN question specifically and the impact across state and private schools, in a more up to date manner.

It’s not. It’s about half. Not all private schools are members of the ISC (about 70% of their members have charitable status).

Nope, just getting folk to pay what they should have been paying all along.
It might feel like a raid, but honestly, it's really, really not.

Ah yes, as well as using SEN families to further their cause, the entitled also use the 'lower income children'. Nice. Just accept you've had a free ride for a long time.

Ah yes, another insult, how novel of you.

@HairyAl - you are incorrect. Charitable status only helps large private schools with endowments and the proposal was to get rid of business rates relief.

What the policies the Labour Party propose actually do is damage the smallest schools with charitable status and benefit for profit run private school chains via private equity.
It is dangerous when people with no real world business skills get too involved and moralise to others.

Clearly no-one thinks that education is a luxury, hence the fact that it is available without charge

But that's exactly what people on here keep saying.

We're subsidising the government by covering the cost of our children's basic education - which the state commits to provide for each UK child. As well as paying for the bells and whistles which ps integrates into the school day.

Not only are we paying for the whole of our childrens' education ourselves - unlike other countries where the education funding follows the child - but then you want us to pay VAT on it. When it's so 'clearly' not a luxury that the state provides it for all children.

You make no sense.

Not an answer, what do you say instead of that phrase? I use state and still think it's woefully bad policy.

But why do you want to tax everything to that extent? Are you reliant on the state or public sector? I can't see why else you'd post as you did. It's such an incredibly bad idea.

Why would you want swimming lessons to have VAT? Can you say without deflecting

Private schools are not charities (though some pretend to be).
Private school parents should be paying VAT on the luxury service they access.
People are simply reacting because the free ride is (finally) ending.
The amount of threads on the whole topic and every one is the same - using SEN families, poorer families etc to further their cause, when really they just cannot cope with not getting special treatment.
@EasternStandard I cannot respond to your post as thread full, but in answer to your last question - I simply see no good reason not to.

So your experience of State help has been awful and for that you are wishing struggle and worse on elderly pensioners who are living in poverty on an income just above the pension credit level. Niiice.
And to be clear-I DON'T believe that our elder, vulnerable citizens are being unrealistic if they want/need State help when they are trying to exist on less than £12k per year. Or indeed anything less than £15k Pa. Pension Credit level is insultingly low.
How feckless of me/them🙄 to want them to get help!
A society should be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable members-and the elderly-especially the over 80s-are certainly that. I say if this Labour government and the decisions they are taking now were judged right now they would be found wanting on that score.
And your lack of understanding of and empathy for the very real issue of Pensioner Poverty in the UK today is astounding and horrifying. You are bringing to life Thatcher's pronouncement that 'there is no such thing as society'. You got next to nothing from the State when you needed help, so you don't think anyone else should?
Outside the relatively prosperous South/South East of the UK pensioners right now are not sitting in big houses, worth £1m+ (as some here on MN seen to imagine all pensioners are) planning their next cruise. Beyond that bubble houses are worth a tiny fraction of S/SE values, the weather is colder, worse and darker longer during the Winter. But hey-they in the North hardly count do they?🙄
Mind you, when pensioners in the South have to start selling their houses to pay their bills, I bet a fair few posters on MN will suddenly start caring about the financial pressures on the elderly as they see their inheritances disappearing down the pan...
So-NO apologies from me for wanting poor pensioners to get the State help they need.
And you are Jacob Rees -Mogg in disguise, aren't you? C'mon admit it....

Unfortunately some people on social media actually want to harm this country and are not genuine. They are paid for by malign foreign influences.