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!

@Runemum if you propose the voucher system for those who attend ‘normal schools’, what some independent SS cost is irrelevant because they wouldn’t be included. They aren’t mainstream schools.

EHE is elective home education. There’s no way any government in recent history would provide £7.5k for all EHE families. That wouldn’t fit in with the current or previous governments' views.

EOTAS/EOTIS (I stands for ‘In’ following a shift in the judicial thinking of some at SENDIST (the SEND Tribunal) and some case law. It sometimes has a C for ‘college’ on the end instead of S or as well as) via an EHCP is when it is inappropriate (legally) for the provision to be made in a school or college. This could be for a number of reasons.

Why do you think DC with EOTAS/EOTIS don’t deserve or need the equivalent of a voucher yet those EHE or attending mainstream schools do? There are costs (actual costs and parental time/stress associated with EOTAS/EOTIS that are not funded. Some of which could be funded if parents appeal/go via the JR route but some parents choose not just like some in schools decide not to. Poor EOTAS packages are common and in many poor packages DC in schools (mainstream and special) receive more provision. Those parents could appeal, but so could those attending schools.

PB is personal budget. FSM is free school meals.

If you could perhaps write less cryptically then all of us mere mortals might understand whst you are talking about.

Is this a reference to a comment I made about seeing posters who pay into their pension to get it under 100k? It's not something I've done because I was on a fair bit more than that so never received free hours. I have never received child benefit, never received free hours and I pay an additional rate of 45%. I'm not a dirty tax avoider. Try again with your insults.

@Sunshineonarainyday80 ,

I was merely remarking on most people (including my) attitude to tax, it is human nature.

Frankly I find it pretty disgusting that you accuse me of that when I pay my bloody taxes in full. I have an ISA account and I pay into a pension. That's the extent of my "avoidance". To start making accusations that I'm a dirty tax avoider is below the belt.

@Sunshineonarainyday80 ,

You are way too sensitive!

I was merely remarking on people’s attitude to tax.

Personally, I am not sure I see the difference between ISAs, paying into pensions and more complex tax avoidance schemes (such as film schemes). If they are legal, they are legal.

But some people randomly assign a moral value to using some but not others.

No personal attack at all.

Not a personal attack yet you personally tagged me and not to quote me on anything specific - just to make sure I knew where it was aimed.

Don't gaslight me with telling me I'm way too sensitive.

@Sunshineonarainyday80 ,

‘Don't gaslight me with telling me I'm way too sensitive.’

Seriously ?!

I tagged you because you brought up that threads went badly when putting more money into pensions was brought up, simple as that.

Which should mean going to the High Court over failure to assess/issue/provide education, rather than over this issue - because the High Court won't be able to redirect the case where it should actually be.

Much better chance of success, support and crowd funding going against an education tax.

I'm pretty sure there isn't a great chance of success when you are challenging the law on the wrong basis - though I agree about the crowdfunding.

The idea isn’t to challenge the law but to challenge law being changed on the wrong basis.

Reports now the author of the IFS research has deleted his X account

Not only are there the connections but it reaffirms my view this was a background level researcher whose paper was put in the spotlight to underpin a very poor Labour policy

Spite is driving Labour and Phillipson that is clear from tweets

And now this. A serious gov would rest a policy on an impact assessment not on Luke S who deletes X

What a bunch of cranks they are. They should pull it and apologise to children impacted already.

EasternStandard · Today 09:47
Reports now the author of the IFS research has deleted his X account

If he’s so convinced that his advice to the government is the right thing then he should have no difficulty in defending this policy on X.

There’s no accountability here

Imo Labour needed to do their own assessment rather than ride on a mid level background researcher. The amount of times posters here referenced that paper by Luke S

This is happening because they are incompetent and motivated by base emotions rather than rigour

Labour should have just been upfront about the ideological motivations behind this, the condescending way they treat the public as utter imbeciles who will believe any old rubbish is almost as infuriating as the damage the policy would do to children if ever implemented.

But the public, or very significant part of it, behave as utter imbeciles who will believe any old rubbish, so why would they treat them any different?

@Barbadossunset ,

‘If he’s so convinced that his advice to the government is the right thing then he should have no difficulty in defending this policy on X.’

X is a total cesspit. Loads of people have deleted their accounts on there for any number of reasons. The idea that someone is obliged to have an X account to defend their views isn’t realistic.

And given the ire and lack of logic with which some on here criticise anyone defending the policy, why would he want to be attacked by an angry lobby group?

His report is oft cited because it is the only piece of unbiased (in most people’s opinion) research out there. The IFS was never claimed to be left wing when it critiqued the last Tory government. It is a personally reasonable piece of writing with the all the normal caveats and limitations that any research on future behaviour will have. It is far from a ‘6th form economists’ essay.

I do suspect that the policy may (rightly) be delayed as Reeves has now had the resources of the civil service to analyse it. One of the problems of our system is that the civil service can’t work for the opposition. We shall see in late October.

"His report is oft cited because it is the only piece of unbiased (in most people’s opinion) research out there. The IFS was never claimed to be left wing when it critiqued the last Tory government. It is a personally reasonable piece of writing with the all the normal caveats and limitations that any research on future behaviour will have. It is far from a ‘6th form economists’ essay."

That is conspicuous nonsense, isn't it? His report follows hot on the heals of Green's report for the IFS that recommended the same thing in order to persuade parents not to use private schools to achieve educational equality. His report essentially requiring a small shift, Green's a large one.

Sibieta repeatedly and transparently fabricates evidence, or uses previous research to support his argument when in fact it contradicts it.

@Marchesman ,

‘That is conspicuous nonsense, isn't it? His report follows hot on the heals of Green's report for the IFS that recommended the same thing in order to persuade parents not to use private schools to achieve educational equality. His report essentially requiring a small shift, Green's a large one.’

No, in my opinion it isn’t. Hot on the heals? A full 11 months later.

‘Sibieta repeatedly and transparently fabricates evidence, or uses previous research to support his argument when in fact it contradicts it.’

Now you come up with a big claim. What evidence has been transparently fabricated? Have you contacted the IFS and made them aware of the fabricated evidence? What did they say?

Well to be fair, this is the same british public who voted for brexit, so they've got form for believing any old rubbish.

I’m sure he doesn’t but it’s all the rabid private parents screaming that he’s ruined their lives that he’s avoiding I would imagine.
X is hardly the place for any kind of rational discussion of any kind.

The mindset is very similar to be honest, but I guess being able to tax children’s education is another Brexit bonus.

It was the connections article that did it

..also possibly so as not to make things worse for one of his good friends and ex house mate of 5 years, the labour minister who has been referred to the parliamentary commissioner for not declaring his connections to Luke S when using his report to justify education taxes.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-minister-friends-private-school-tax-report/