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!

@RadishesRock

They still manage a better Oxbridge success rate than the average private school.

@DadJoke

"I predict the number of private school places won't decline, that Alexis Quinn will somehow find a way to pay for her child's education regardless of losing the case, and that the wealthiest people in the country will keep whining about "

So whilst the data on number of private school pupils starting this September has not yet come out, the data in May this year showed a 2.7% reduction for 2023-24 which was the highest drop since 2011. Also this was prior to the election.

The reality is no one will know how many private school pupils will switch to state for another 4 years.

But as a hypothetical question, if large numbers (say 15% or more) switch to state schools so that the VAT policy ended up costing the taxpayers more than it actually collected then would you still support this policy?

An additional 5.7%.

thecritic.co.uk/private-schools-are-a-waste-of-money/

Yes, for reasons I have already stated, but I think it’s extraordinarily unlikely.

I answer all demographics questions as 'white british'. But I have dual nationality and so does my daughter.

That's true for a significant proportion of her school class (in addition to those with non-British-origin parents).

Edited: I don't know how the other parents answer demographics survey questions. But I know they have dual nationality, and I suspect they see themselves as British enough that - like me - they may not bother to specify otherwise in surveys

What reasons? You indignantly said that you don't see private school as a social harm similar to cigarettes.

So if private school isn't a social harm - and this is just a tax policy, not a social policy - how can you possibly justify a tax which loses money?

I hope there are more lawyers look into this and work together to bring this to court, not only for SEN division, but for all education services.

It’s not a tax which will lose money. I’ve said so.
The aim of taxation is to raise tax.

it’s not a social harm like cigarettes. It doesn’t harm those who use it. The more wealthy people in the state sector, the better.

Private schools will never be abolished, and this is a distraction from the thread, so I am out.

£81,015 raised for legal action, £270,365 to go!

change.org

Your answers are so inconsistent.

You answered @1dayatatime 's hypothetical question of whether you would still support the policy if the policy cost taxpayers more than it collected with "Yes, for reasons I have already stated, but I think it’s extraordinarily unlikely."

But now you say "The aim of taxation is to raise tax"

So would you repeal this tax if it didn't raise tax (and instead cost money) or would you support it??

You don't think clearly enough to understand your own thought process. You're just responding emotionally to dogwhistles.

I’ve read all of dads posts and my conclusion is they simply don’t want private education to exist -
for their own motivations - and yet are unable to formulate a valid rationale why, or to articulate it.

The broader tax raising argument is a red herring, the improvement to state schools is a canard, and the luxury angle, well that’s just bonkers.

I would prefer honesty, where they admit envy, or that they perceives it disadvantages their own DC.

I still want to understand the notion of social good, from a legal perspective.

So @DadJoke has admitted that PS can, of course, as we all know, be a social good for that child and their PS.

The question then is, on what possible planet, has a child got a duty to somehow create a social good for others, by joining state education?

@DadJoke

Please see the aibu thread
To wonder why someone would want to be a secondary school teacher?

Your comments please with respect to Labours promised 6,500 new state school teachers.

I wonder if Labour secretly hope that the legal challenge succeeds? Labour are poised for large tax increases that are going to effect their popuularity in the autumn so may be grateful if having another point of attack removed . The policy in my opinion was a an appeasement to the left of the party which is suppressed at the moment; there won't be civil war in Labour if this quietly went way and it would be even better if the judiciary could be blamed for it going.

the SEN angle is important because presumably a proportion of the money Labour will try to gain through this tax will be aimed at SEN in the state sector. You therefore are penalizing one set of SEN kids for another and you would have to prove SEN is treated better in the state swctor.

the money into the SEN sector in state won't make a huge difference yet allowing the option of a private option will help. Intact there should be more state support for SEN kids in private.

They've said that they plan to use the money raised to hire 6500 extra teachers, breakfast club for all, and a councillor in each school.

I haven't heard of any plans to use the money for SEN.

Goodness knows how they plan to recruit the teachers, when they already have 3000 open vacancies.

But then the tax take won't materialise either, if more than 10% of kids switch over the next 10 years.

So it will be non-existent revenue funding non-existent teachers.

Just Labour grabbing money out of ideological zeal and flushing it down the toilet, to the UK's detriment.

@mids2019 - I vehemently dislike the notion of blaming the judiciary or the House of Lords, because it undermines our democracy, fundamentally.
We cannot have praise the courts and Starmer for dealing with the rioters and now suddenly blame the judiciary.
It is a fundamental principle of democracy that the judiciary is separate and unbiased and that the House of Lords is a second chamber.

The question then is, on what possible planet, has a child got a duty to somehow create a social good for others, by joining state education?

This resonates. Our childrens' education is for their benefit. It's immoral to suggest otherwise.

Agreed. The judiciary is fundamentally important for democracy, and the government should encourage respect for it, not undermine it for their own political gain.

It would be blatant populism to blame the judiciary or the house of Lords, and as deeply harmful as populism always is.

But the argument also forgets that a lot of kids that will be forced back into state, will be the same kids who have already been in state and didn't havd a good experience- so if their presence didn't work then, why would it suddenly work now?

Not to mention how I'm really not sure how by sending mine to state and having fancier holidays it is going to benefit others.

The idea is flawed on many, many levels.

https://www.faireducation.org.uk/our-fair-education-priorities

Whilst I agree with a lot of the underlying principles, I disagree with the fact that some want to limit my choice of sending my DCs to grammar schools.
It is important to understand the background to all of this.

I assume that charitable private schools have traditionally been apolitical? Removed from the situation? Whilst a lot of other groups have gained traction?

I understand the anti independent schools feeling in society, maybe especially in current times. However I think that pragmatically this is a terrible policy to introduce right now. It is extremely likely to gather no net revenue and, at worst, to cost the state money as people move to state over the next 1-5 years. It risks worsening the infamous 22bln black hole, right at the time the Government is telling us to freak out about the black hole.

It is not logical nor good economic practice to do this right now. Min return max risk.

Right.

Populism - in a word.

Keeps the unions happy etc

If it is ideological then I could understand it more if they either scrapped independent schools altogether (so that they weren't just the domain if the v wealthy) or levied VAT on everything that buys advantage (tuition etc). This doesn't really achieve any ideological aim because it doesn't level the playing field.