Thread 2: VAT on school Fees- High court challenge

[EHCPerhaps]

Following on from thread 1
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5160565-vat-on-school-fees-high-court-challenge

Background to legal challenge (not yet a case):
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13824931/amp/Single-mother-autistic-child-launches-High-Court-challenge-Labours-private-schools-VAT-raid-claiming-violates-daughters-right-education.html

Sorry to begin a new thread, OP, but your thread filled up very quickly!

The normal way to get a means-tested boost to state education would of course be to increase basic rate income tax.

How about if everyone writes to their MP and tells them that they release Labour from their unwise Manifesto promise, and are happy for them to increase basic rate income tax by 2% and use that to increase education funding.

This would bring taxation pretty much back to what it was 6 months ago (before the NI cut) and would raise an extra £14billion in tax.

Labour could use that to increase per pupil education funding by £1400 per year, which is 20%. That would actually make a difference, the cost would be fairly shared out across the population, it would cost almost nothing to collect, and it's a fairly small disincentive to work.

Just do it now. It's a quick email which will take you 2 minutes.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/

“Often, independent schools are providing SEND provision to plug gaps in capacity that is not otherwise available locally,” the ISC said, adding that the VAT policy will “undermine the government’s attempts to fix the SEND system”.

https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/delay-private-school-fee-vat-charge-or-lose-teachers

Interesting points from representative bodies of independent schools. TES haven’t quite nailed the detail of their reporting here around the issues for EHCP-holding children, and those without, at private schools. It makes me interested to read the submissions to government the article is based on, though

And unions, that should have said above- NASUWT and ASCL, who represent teachers and school leaders across state and private schools.

Both NASUWT and ISC called for the undertaking of an impact assessment to consider the effect on the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) system, specifically on local authorities, “where more mainstream places may be needed”.

Awful that no impact assessment has been done. And logically it won’t just be more mainstream places that are needed, with the rise in EHCPs so there’s more to this issue than reported

The only way to raise any meaningful amount of money is to increase the tax take from a much greater proportion of the population, through a 1% or 2% rise in general VAT or income tax for example. Most people aren’t keen on this though because, whilst they say they want greater state education funding, they only want that if someone else is paying for it.

Messing around with VAT on school fees or non dom tax won’t raise any meaningful amount of tax, and in fact could actually end up producing a net loss. We all know that these policies have absolutely nothing to do with raising tax though, and everything to do with ideology.

‘How about if everyone writes to their MP and tells them that they release Labour from their unwise Manifesto promise, and are happy for them to increase basic rate income tax by 2% and use that to increase education funding.’

there’s something really distasteful about the well off demanding that the poorest contribute more.
I’d support both VAT of fees AND a tax increase for higher earners. I’m in the highest tax bracket, so can afford it. Much more than someone working PT or on minimum wage can anyway.

A proper housing tax would be the most effective way to raise money, or make people pay CGT on their primary residence (index linked).

Those who sacrificed a big house to pay school fees wouldn’t need to worry too much , but it would hit foreign non resident owners and those who used their family house as a tax avoidance scheme.

So much appetite for tax

Even Reeves is rowing back on policies given their late lack of ability on realising behaviour change

The policy isn’t about raising revenue (it would do the opposite medium term) for schools though, it’s an ideological punative policy to please the hard left and the envious small minded. Read through the thread, you’ll barely read anything around it being revenue raising from its supporters only the usual totally ignorant vague mutterings about the Government subsidising PS schools and slurs about PS pupils/parents.

You do understand how percentages work though right?

It’s so bad for this

Labour have some clunkers which they’ve now said they’ll ’be pragmatic’ on ie we didn’t / don’t have a bloody clue but not this

It’s emotive not revenue based

Because the revenue raising aspect is a pointless debate.

Supporters of the tax argue it will raise revenue because they predict only a small percentage of children will move to state as a result.

Opponents of the tax say people will leave in droves.

But until the tax is actually implemented no one can tell. So what's the point of discussing it.

But for clarity, I support the tax and believe it will raise revenue.

You do understand how percentages work though right?

Are you familiar with the concept of progressive taxation?

In theory, would you support an increase in income tax for higher or additional rate payers in the alternative?

Yes I would.

But actually I think the problem is that high income people bear most of the tax burden, as opposed to high wealth.

Higher taxes on capital gains and property - not punitive but fair, would redress this balance.

House price growth is strangling the country, and effectively allowing the older generation to take from the young. So much of income goes to banks to pay ridiculous mortgages or landlords on eye watering rents, rather than in the economy. That would actually create growth, but the wealthiest would lose out. It would also deter 'foreign investment' in the form of buying and sitting on London property.

There is nothing distasteful about saying that our whole working population should contribute to state run services, using our existing progressive tax model - which is income tax.

You know that people who earn more pay more income tax than people who earn less, right?

It's the only way to raise meaningful revenue. It's what the nordic countries do. Lower earners pay far more tax in in the nordic countries and higher earners pay about the same as here... and still get to access universal benefits.

That's what works.

I don't disagree about those with high wealth (and actually a lot of those will have generational wealth) but l if we can't tax the wealth, and are looking at a tax on those with high income (which includes myself incidentally), then a fairer way would be to do it across the board. I don't see the justification for those additional rate tax payers using state education not contributing more too.

@strawberrybubblegum but the tax system as a whole js not progressive.

The more people earn the more likely people are to own property, investments etc and the money generated from these is taxed at a far lower rate

But yes. Let's move to a Scandinavian system of higher general taxation and well funded public services available to all, as well as excellent maternity provision.

You know what the Scandinavians aren't big on though?

Private schools.

Finally we got there!

Yes as long as you have belief and your children aren’t affected, there is no point in discussing it.

My son has had an EHCP since he was 4 years old. At secondary level all of our local state schools refused to take him. A school which didn’t want him, but was informed by the LA that they were taking him anyway, wanted him to arrive at each lesson five minutes late and leave five minutes early and learn through the window in the classroom door (standing in the corridor). They also weren’t going to let him wear a coat at any time in any weather as it was against the rules even to wear one to and from school, even though he has a wonky ‘thermostat’ and can’t regulate his own temperature. And he wouldn’t be allowed to use the lifts in the four storey buildings even though he has poor mobility, because he isn’t a wheelchair user.

We did eventually get him into a special school, paid for by the LA…. but would anyone really accept this provision for their child in the meantime? Really?

I completely agree that we were very fortunate to be able to fund private education for a time, but we had very little choice. We are not high earners. I fully support paying a little more income tax/CGT/whatever across the board to actually make a difference to state school provision, and especially to SEN provision within the state sector, so that other children like mine can access a proper education. However funding an improvement in state education should not be the sole responsibility of those of us using the private system, many of whom had little choice. And currently SEN improvements aren’t even getting a mention from Labour.

@Mrsbabbecho we are discussing it.

I said I thought it would raise revenue and why, you say it won't.

But actually there's nothing else to discuss on that particular point which is why 'noone is bringing it up' as you suggest. Because other than 100 posts of 'will' 'will not' there's or much more to say.

@EasternStandard ,

‘So much appetite for tax’

Not really, just fairer taxes. I think they should abolish stamp duty, especially the really high rates, as it is a tax on mobility and divorce.

But property is misused in a really economically and environmentally inefficient way. Empty properties should be expensive to hold on to, and there should be a cost for buying far more space than you need. At the moment, the continuous rise of prices of property due to immigration and lack of building (which, hopefully, is finally being addressed) and the lack of CGT on a primary residence is an incentive to spend the maximum on one’s primary residence, rather than investing in growth.

It would also address super expensive properties near good state schools.

Just about every serious economist is in favour of a property tax.

As for general taxation, we are at the bottom end of the OECD, so it is hard to argue that taxation is sufficient, given our public services.

This

Given the dire state of local authority budgets, there needs to be a radical review of council tax too. Bandings decided decades ago are not an appropriate to judge how much people should pay.

Having to pay according to property lived in, rather than stamp duty, would also encourage older people to downsize more quickly, freeing up family homes rather than sitting on large assets unnecessarily. And also free up the cash to fund their care fees.