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!

@Marchesman - personally, I am much more interested in the educational groups under Skinners, for example. That includes top public schools and thriving state schools, academies away from the clutches of local authority control. It includes secondary moderns doing really well.

Look up Grocer’s too- some of the most charitable private schools are in that group as well as unis, and hugely successful state schools.

I actually personally think this Labour move is an internal party own issue. Blair understood the party own issues quite well (despite some of his own failings) and they are never going to get control back due to some of his policies. And I think that kills some in the party so the VAT is a symbolic pointless move.
However, as it will harm children in families the rest of us who are not blindingly partisan should fight for the rights of those children, and children at large.

I do understand that being pushy and middle class affects my access to services.

But it certainly doesn't follow that this improves services for everyone. In fact, quite the opposite where there are limited resources.

Why do you want the limited state-funded resources of state schools to be disproportionately taken up by people who would otherwise be out of the way in private schools - paying for the resources they use up themselves?

That makes no sense.

As for the impact of the old boys network - that is only relevant for a tiny number of private schools. But even so, even banning private schools entirely would make no difference. Those families aren't wealthy and powerful because they go to public school. They go to public school because they are wealthy. You have the causality back-to-front.

@AgathaMystery - I am so sorry to hear about your situation. How awful! And definitely not a derail, it is most relevant.

@DadJoke

If you can't explain what you mean by subsidy. How about luxury?

Is this what you mean?

https://www.london-oratory.org/

I have no idea why you are posting a link to
the London Oratory.

I’ve explained three times what I mean by subsidy. I am not going to get embroiled in a discussion of what luxury means.

Private education shouid not be exempt from VAT. That’s it.

If I'm allowed to derail a bit - my best friend has DC in one of top league London schools, one of those who get top of the crop CATS 135+ type of kids. In the past 70%+ would go to Oxbridge.
Huge charitable agenda btw.

They were going to run an event to share with parent US unis admission process. The event was aimed predominantly at those starting six form. It was completely oversubscribed with Year 9-11 parents, so much so they now promised to repeat it in a few weeks time.

It's a real shame - these are really super bright and driven kids who could have made a lot of positive difference to the UK (aside from being net tax contributors), but this hostile climate is driving them away. Once they are gone, it's very unlikely they will return

You've defined subsidy as 'People not paying extra tax who I would like to pay extra tax'

That's not what subsidy means.

But my DC1’s state school far out performs DC2’s private school. Who has the most “luxury”?!

@nearlylovemyusername - that is a real shame.

However, I am not sure the self serving Labour elite would care too much as essentially this is a fight between them and their uni mates who went into banking and can afford eg St Paul’s, whilst they can’t. They can’t send their kids to private schools without compromising their political career. But they still want their DC to come out on top! Out of principle. They deserve it because they are morally superior and did the right thing, whilst the rest “sold out”.

Never mind the regions, Wales, Scotland, NI etc and the fools backing them in the unions that are about to be screwed over. Never mind SEN kids.

Remember the Labour elite are worse than the Tories. They are doing people a favour sending their precious brood into state schools, because moral superiority and brains are apparently infectious.

Ha exactly

Or the state can lose 3 times over with: 1) families pulling children out of their private schools (no VAT); 2) children being put in state schools instead (using education budget); 3) parents reducing hours or retiring earlier than expected (losing income tax).

We’ll know in 3-4 years time when more children cross the transition years.

My kids don’t go to private school but I don’t like this policy decision at all. My local community has a large independent school that is a major employer of local people, it actually generates £29 million to local economy. A shrinking roll will mean job losses which will impact on the wider community.

i also think it is unfair to add tax to those already in the system… the impacts of children moving schools, losing friendships could really impact on some vulnerable children’s mental health. Let’s not forget the 7% are children too and they will suffer more than the parents.

many parents here in my community have taken mortgages to pay fees, they don’t have an extra 20% of spare income. Making VAT applicable to new entrants only would ensure parents have choice from the outset.

I want education to work for all children, not the 93 or 7 % but all 100% of them.

@Itsjustlikethat quite. No upside there either.

Good post

@DadJoke "That’s it."

Yet you are unable to rationalise it, or to even explain your terms.

I posted an example of the sort of school that parents in most parts of the country can only access if they pay for it themselves.

When it is available free at the point of delivery you fail to make the connection with luxury, however, when parents scrimp and save for it, for some reason known only to yourself, you insist on calling it that!

You summed up the essence of this move.

It's very cynical. But electorate won't ever see it.

It's absolutely mad that some people are getting that for free and then they sit in an ivory tower asking others to pay to SUBSIDISE it by paying VAT.

My local grammar (Cranbrook) is also pretty 'luxurious' and it's so odd that people are happy for us to get that free and pay no tax in relation to it!!

I teach at an independent school. I teach a significant number of students with asd or asd traits. The classes are small and calm. I try to build good relationships with the students. I think carefully about the best strategies to help individual students.

I look at the school where my DS goes (I have come to loathe the place) and its ethos of shouting at children, making them line up and handing out detentions like confetti and I think that some of my lovely students with asd would either be permanently in internal exclusion or refusing to go to school if they had to go there. There is a set focused on learning support where hopefully they are a little more compassionate but it wouldn't be suitable for the children I teach because of their high academic ability.

A lot of the problem with the state sector is lack of funding. But there are other issues too. Like a one size fits all approach and an ability to treat parents and students with contempt with no come back. An independent with the attitude of my son's state school would soon run out of parents willing to pay.

I actually think the independent school sector is fantastic and ought to be nutured rather than attacked. Partly because it can offer so much diversity in approach and can suit so many different children. The boarding schools are practically an export industry bringing money into the country. The charitable schools are the best though. I have not heard good things about the local for profit independents.

I suggest all private schools should apply to the government changing their status to state schools instead. I thought all educations should be free, right? The only difference is Eton and Harrow will have to take up more students compared to the current small classes.

It’s you who are failing to make the connection.

There is free education, available to everyone.

There is private education, which is optional and available to those who pay. They still have the same option that 93% of people take.

it’s irrelevant whether people on a high income “scrimp and save” to get the private option.

I think you entirely understand, but just disagree.

I have a question. What proportion of income should a charity spend on charitable purposes to be granted charitable status?

Regardless of the website pictures this is not a good example of a state school being luxurious. My friend's son goes there. The library featured was burnt down by a student, there have been problems with concrete, the swimming pool has been broken for years, the stuffing is falling out of the theatre seats and the whole site is horribly overcrowded.

Yes, let's penalise choice.
Education is education not a luxury.

My child will
Now be leaving her independent prep at the end of y6 rather than staying on and transferring to an independent secondary. I've heard that there is lots of extra money going into the state sector and that it's going to be wonderful so I've decided not to waste my money on the independent sector anymore.... oh and I can't afford it. I'm priced out.

@DadJoke

You repeatedly make the sort of Marxist classification errors that have infected Labour politics since they gave up on the working class.

Private schools that have charitable status make no profit and therefore spend all of their income on a charitable purpose. But as previously stated a large proportion of private schools eschew charitable status.

There are children in private schools who are receiving their education free; as with grammar schools, theirs is "free education, available to everyone".

Conversely, places at schools of quality of the London Oratory are not "available to everyone". Furthermore, it is an independent charitable trust which differs in only one respect from the sort of schools that you seek to penalise. Its costs are met by everyone, including a disproportionately large number of parents who use the other type of independent school.

If people are sending their children to schools that they can barely afford then it is safe to assume that they believe that they have no "option". You are not in a position to pontificate about that.

Oh right, so now that you've reached a dead end on the bullshit about the state subsidising private schools - when it's actually the other way round - you've moved onto the next dogwhistle. Charitable status.

You know that VAT exemption has nothing to do with charitable status, right? It's education which is exempt from VAT. Same in pretty much every country throughout the world (those countries that don't exempt education from VAT subsidise private education to make up for it. And I don't mean your made-up kind of subsidise. Those other countries actually give the private schools money).

As for 'charitable purposes', schools charitable status is similar to religions. The diocese of Southwark, for example, is considered a charity even though I can't see much giving from them apart from preaching their religion. Which is arguably less useful than educating the next generation.

I'd actually be OK with those schools which are charities changing to some other structure, if there was a sensible way to do it. They don't get anything significant from being charities. There isn't a sensible way to do it, though. Like fuck does the government get to appropriate assets which were donated by someone hundreds of years ago for a specific purpose, and have been built up by parents and donors since. That would be blatant theft.

Also, I think our society would be less culturally rich if we created an artificial barrier on what is and isn't a charity. There are quite a lot of random little charities which do things like restore windmills. Not particularly 'important' in the grand scheme of things. But it's a part of British culture I like.