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!

No, it takes some reasonable magical assumptions and a knowledge of mathematical unicorn modelling where costs equal gains.
But, like all economics Left wing class spite policies, the model doesn’t depend on reality. It will take a year or two to definitively find out and we don’t care as long as we get to close some schools and cause upset to children’s education of those we perceive as wrong thinking,

It’s clear you have some kind of strange obsession with boarding pupils, but many parents (and children) are more than happy with their boarding experience. Families are free to make their own choices.

I agree with this. I think posters attack boarding schools as they see it another way of attacking posho parenting which for some reason they enjoy doing.
As pp have pointed out, state boarding schools and drama and music schools seem to escape censure.

@Mrsbabbecho ,

Have you looked at the model?

The upside is the VAT collected plus the additional VAT collected on the additional vatable expenditure from the freed up income from pupils who move. The downside is, obviously, the additional cost to educate the moving pupils.

Now, everyone on this thread will say that when they save £20,000 a year, they won’t spend any of this on vatable items but either increase pension or stop working (or work less), but we all know, in reality, that is just written out of spite and is, colloquially speaking, a load of bollocks. (Don’t bother saying how this will really happen. We will see real numbers soon enough).

The IFS modelled all the above and, depending on the amount who leave and the propensity to spend, say it will raise money.

Now others (many with a vested interest) have modelled it differently and say the IFS is wrong.

So far, few have left and the IFS is looking right, but it is a live experiment, so we will soon see.

?!? Just read back what you wrote! So it’s now to save parents money on paying for education, so they can spend it on other vatable items? Like cars or something??

Id rather spend my already heavily taxed income on my children’s education, but thanks for the kind offer.

It just gets more desperate and far fetched everytime someone attempts to justify the policy.

@Mrsbabbecho ,

‘It just gets more desperate and far fetched everytime someone attempts to justify the policy.’

Honestly, it is this kind of comment that is a bit desperate.

I merely explained how the IFS modelled it. Are you accusing them of bias?

I think you’re underestimating the parental income for those schools, and overestimating the interest of the students on anything other than their own self interest.

It’s not spite or bollocks. I have long planned for the day when I don’t have to pay school fees anymore. It will be going on my mortgage and into my pension so that I can retire earlier. It’s just prudent financial planning. Who are you to tell me what I am going to do with my own money?

The IFS is not looking right at all. The policy hasn’t even started and already numbers are down. And your comment about “experiment” is distasteful. We are talking about children. They shouldn’t be fucking experimented with.

Agree re experiment

Starmer should take his poor policy impacting education and stuff it the we need to be pragmatic drawer with his other failures

@Newbutoldfather is correct that this was policy assumption that parents who are forced to leave PS will spend this money instead on VATable purchases.

It remains to be seen if this materialises - this would be marginal parents who are very heavily invested in kids and can't stretch themselves anymore. I'm one of those.
In my view those parents won't spend excess - they will either invest it in uni/property funds for kids (thus making inequality even worse) or reduce their hours/retire earlier.
But I agree with @Newbutoldfather that this is live experiment.

I also agree that this current Y7 entries might be driven by birth rate, however, they are not indicative - if parents aimed at PS they didn't apply for state schools last year and don't have much room for manoeuvre right now. It's Open Days which are running now that can give some ideas. From what I'm hearing here (London) numbers are down at least 30-40%, even to some very top schools.

From what I'm hearing here (London) numbers are down at least 30-40%, even to some very top schools.

Really? If this is the case someone might want to let Starmer know before he torpedoes the sector

@nearlylovemyusername ,

Thank you for your measured post.

The thing is that the ‘propensity to spend’ is an input number. The modeller didn’t assume 100%, I vaguely remember he assumed 70% but, like all modellers, he looked at lots of different scenarios with both the number leaving lower or higher and the propensity to spend lower and higher. Modelling doesn’t give precise answers but ranges and breakevens. It is still better to have a model than just assume an answer!

I do think that, realistically, people may have very lofty ambitions for the saved money but, ultimately, money is fungible and, for instance, someone who has driven an old banger for years in order to send their children private will, when they realise they have £40k sitting in their bank, decide to upgrade. And, maybe treat their family to a nice holiday . Now, that won’t be all the people but it will definitely be some of them. So, we can argue about the size of the number, but it is non zero.

And some parents, who either wanted a good private or state, may now realise that the private they wanted is looking at lower attaining pupils to fill the places, and may well switch state to private. I have a strong feeling this has been going on for years now, with less well off parents of higher attaining children being substituted by wealthier lowers attaining ones.

That's true - I have a lot of friends /colleagues in PS. Their schools run Open days in the last few weeks for 2025 and 2027 entries (11+ and 13+). They'd normally expect 500+ families in each event, this time it was under 300.

Starmer will torpedo sector no matter what, it's not about raising money and they know it. It's zealotry

I think sending children to state day schools has to be weighed against the damage to emotional development and mental health that can occur in some children due to boredom, inactivity, a culture of low expectation and everyone gets prizes.

There have been countless studies on how state educated children end up with physical and mental health problems and/or in prison.

But yes, their mums do their laundry.

Ditto.

Since we have moved into the realm of "I saw someone on the telly/read in the Guardian from someone who went to boarding school..", I would add that in a state grammar turned comp two years ahead of me a boy was bullied until he hanged himself.

You don't get people like that writing for the Guardian.

The UN Convention of the Rights of the Child is far broader than the HR Act - please read Articles 2 and 3. Starmer is in contravention of those for all kids in private schools, in my opinion. Anyone care to comment?

According to Article 12 the children in private schools also have a right to be heard.
Article 23 for children with SEND. Article 29 for choice of education. There is so much in this that they are potentially in breach of with this VAT policy?

Yes.

Absolutely.

@Marchesman that's why I said some children. I'm sure there are children happy boarding, just as some who are miserable in state.

I'm merely stating that boarding schools aren't the holy grail people think. I'm not 'obsessed' with them, but it was posited that boarding school at 10 was brilliant preparation for adult independence and I countered that it isn't always the case.

But it is notable that sweeping generalisations are made about state schools and their failings, where one anecdote is enough, but any equal criticism of private school is dismissed as Guardian reading biased hysteria.

Me too. IFS is a very left wing org

Boarding at 10 was offered as an example of why Newbutoldfather was wrong about children in day state schools being more independent. However, I am prepared to concede that they acquire valuable self-preservation skills from being put into a school of maybe a thousand 11-18 yr olds.

Despite your belief that people think boarding schools are a holy grail, no one has suggested that. However, it is logical to assume that boarding schools are the best place for the children in them, because:

1. most fee-paying parents want the best thing for their children and they are not idiots.

2. in cases of idiocy or sadism the further children are kept from them the better.

Well fair enough, you were actually being factual (now I’ve actually read it) so apologies. I do actually think the IFS is biased reading their conclusions and the language used, but I realise I’d lose that argument. Basically it will raise money and if it forces pupils into the state school system then the parents will spend that money on other things Labour can tax. Still utter madness, but technically correct as I believe Labour will also remove pension contribution tax rebates making that less attractive as well.

Spending taxed income on your child’s education and saving for your future seems a good idea to me. Its going to be a long 5 years!!!

That argument does not stack up - because those remaining in private schools who now have to pay VAT on private school fees, are foregoing paying VAT on other consumables! So if you think more will stay in private schools, you defeat the argument.

@Mrsbabbecho ,

‘Spending taxed income on your child’s education and saving for your future seems a good idea to me. It’s going to be a long 5 years!!!’

Have the Tories confirmed that they would reverse this?

I think they will watch it play out and then decide.

The IFS is essentially proposing to tax one part of middle and higher earners up to 10% extra. For some people, it is even more than that in percentage terms. To think that will have no consequences is utter madness.