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!

I predict the number of private school places won't decline,

They already have. Numbers across the board fell by 3% last year alone, with even more choosing the state options at 11 and 16 this year.

None of your points make any sense.

the existence of private sector education directly and negatively affects the quality of state education

How exactly?

if private education was banned, there’d be a lot more wealthy people with spare cash which could be taxed and put into state education

Huh? We don't tax wealth on this country, we tax income. The government has already taxed every penny of income the parents use to pay for private school. They will typically have taken a minimum of £15k out of an earned £35k (leaving 20k for school fees). They may have taken up to £33k out of an earned £53k tax (leaving £20k for school fees). Let that sink in. They may have already taken more income tax than the education itself costs.

the more entitled people advocating for state education, the better it will be

Hahahahah.. Who do you think we'll be advocating with?

Labour do the exact opposite of listening to us. Teachers are overwhelmed: do you think they'll try harder if we tell them to???

No. The more children there are in state schools with existing resources (or less, if more than 10-15% of children move) the worse it will be.

But it is directly subsidy, because I am pretty certain that there will be almost no decline in private school places.

That makes the least sense of all. You can't just put the word 'because' in when the 2 things are unrelated.

There is no subsidy. The government is giving £0. We are saving the government £7k per child per year. That's why each child who moves from private to state increases the state cost.

The EHCP process in itself is a deterrent.

www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/blogs/westminster-update-legal-aid-means-test-reforms-delayed

@DadJoke - is essentially arguing that private education is harmful, like cigarettes. Therefore, think no economic case for the tax needs to be made.

Which flies in the face of common law principles.

It also flies in the face of common sense.

👏🏼 at last some common sense on this thread

I did not make that argument at all. I said it should not be subsidised with 0 rate because it’s a luxury. Don’t put words in my mouth.

Yes I'd LOVE to! Both my kids are ND, DD16 has been getting home tuition for 2.5 years as she can't cope with the noise and overstimulation of school, we're so lucky as it's paid by school, online lessons and f2f classes at home with tutors. Not even for an EHCP, I understand this is exceptional, but does mean my DH and I have to be home every day because we can't leave her too long alone in general, and at all when tutors are in the home, we both manage to work full time though. DS12 is going down a similar developmental pathway to DD (only really came to light 3 years ago as she was masking for a few years)
Anyway, DD is a huge politically motivated child and I'm wondering, if she can cope with it, Whether we'd be able to get her fronting some campaign or other as she's absolutely aware she's been exceptionally lucky, but feels such education should be available to all children with such needs - given me food for thought and I think my emotional state these days is much better as I could
Keep my professional head on more easily now I'm less stressed after many years of excessive stress with a completely new world literally overnight, not just for us, but for our children too, especially DD who literally fell to pieces. I never thought for a moment we may have ND children, they grew up til mid primary as completely NT children .... the ND is fine it's just a massive change

The state wins 3 times over if I manage to keep my kids at their private school, as I'll have to wind up my CIC and return to salaried work to keep up with the fees. So they'll get to tax my salary. Then the VAT on top, then the £7k per child we're not costing them for state school places. I'm literally Labour's wet dream.

(Except for the people who benefit from the CIC. They'll be asking for more state support)

but does mean my DH and I have to be home every day because we can't leave her too long alone in general, and at all when tutors are in the home

@FloofPaws, the LA should not be reading you to facilitate provision. If they require a second adult in order for them to provide a suitable full-time education, they should be funding someone to fulfil that role.

You should also request an EHCNA if you haven’t already because an EHCP can include far more provision, not just tutoring, than section 19 provision. Also, whilst LAs have the power to make provision post 16, they don’t have to because section 19 only places a duty on the LA for compulsory school aged pupils. So the current provision may stop. Whereas, EHCPs can continue until 25, or 26 in some circumstances.

Yes, those of us who stay in private will be subsidising the government even more than the substantial amount we are already subsidising them.

But some people will choose not to go private. And so won't subsidise the government the huge amounts we currently do. So this policy isn't sustainable, once the current batch of children leave school.

It’s not subsidised. It’s also not “0 rate”. It’s currently exempt. Zero rated and exempt are very different for VAT purposes, particularly where input VAT in concerned. A decent education is not a luxury and, even if it was, VAT is not a luxury tax. There are plenty of real luxuries which are not subject to VAT.

It doesn't in the slightest, it reduces the burden on the state sector, helps raise standards for all, and maintains critical "checks and balances" on authoritarian governments.

The state should do more to enable more children to have the option of an independent education. The could start by allowing some amount of school fees to be paid by salary sacrifice, and directly funding critical independent SEND provisions on a consistent nationwide basis.

Your posts make no sense.

"Wealthy people should not have their luxuries subsidised by the state."

Subsidise - according to the Oxford dictionary this means "to give money to somebody or an organisation to help pay for something". Bearing that in mind, how is the state subsidising my DD's private education?

Is anyone willing to address labours numbers on the forecast Benefit to the treasury?

That’s actually worrying about the winter fuel vote- more totemic policy pressure on the government to stick it to us parents with kids in private schools.Allowances on winter fuel and protecting freezing pensioners (also an important cause!) are a much easier and more emotive thing for MPs to understand than autistic kids who can’t leave the house and ‘won’t’ go to school.

@strawberrybubblegum you are speaking as if you have literally no idea how being pushy and middle class affects your access to services and improves services for everyone.

You really don’t need me to explain the toxic influence top public schools and the old boys network have affected politics and the country in general.

@Sunshineonarainyday80 by not charging you VAT. Tax breaks are subsidies.

Do you view a loaf of bread as being “subsidised”? There’s no tax on that.

“You really don’t need me to explain the toxic influence top public schools and the old boys network have affected politics and the country in general.”

@DadJoke - please explain how this VAT policy will affect the top public schools.

That doesn't meet the definition of subsidy.

Seriously - you are being pedantic about the tax code? My point stands.

No because there shouldn’t be tax on bread. It’s not luxury.

Maybe just on sourdough then?!

You need to reread the previous posts to get context for this remark. I was answering a question.