VAT on private school fees - ITS NOT ACTUALLY LAW THOUGH?

[BellesAndGraces]

Why is nobody reporting on the fact that the Finance Bill has still not been to the House of Lords or even been debated yet? All the reporting, eg in The Times, just says that VAT will be payable on school fees from 1st Jan but misses out the fact that this is not yet law - surely this is a key piece of information. Am I missing something??

I’m interested to see if anyone has anything informed to add here - I was wondering the same thing myself. I was literally searching the internet earlier because I thought I had missed something…

Yeah, you're missing the fact that this always happens with Finance Bills - they are always implemented before receiving Royal Assent. This is done using a provisional collection of taxes motion (which as passed).

Going through the Lords is just a formality for Finance Bills as they have no power to amend them due to the Commons privilege in all matters of finance.

This is completely normal and happens with every single Budget/Autumn Statement.

No doubt the Tory press will latch on to this and conveniently fail to mention that this has been the process since 1911.

Thank you @SuzieNine. But has there been such a controversial Finance bill in recent times?

It's not really controversial though. Many, many people think it's a good idea.

What’s controversial about it? No increases in income tax, no increases in employee NI. VAT on school fees is a an issue that only affects a tiny minority of the population. Tge most controversial issue is the increase in employer NI contributions really.

@BellesAndGraces , join the Facebook group Education not taxation - it will answer all your queries!

It is only controversial with a very small minority of the population and, in any case, that is irrelevant due to the text highlighted in green in this screenshot.

"But has there been such a controversial Finance bill in recent times?"

Definition of solipsism right here.

Controversial ?
Dont be ridiculous

There have been 2 debates in the house of Lords, which raised many important points, including Labour's inexplicable and 'cruel' haste to implement it:

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2024-09-05b.1296.0&s=education

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2024-10-17b.293.0

The government is free to ignore their advice and is choosing to. All consequences are entirely Labour's responsibility.

As for it not being controversial, is that another word you're re-inventing a shiny new Leftie doublethink meaning for? Like 'tax break', 'subsidy' and 'ethical'.

adjective: controversial

1. giving rise or likely to give rise to controversy or public disagreement.

I think the number of threads on here and articles in papers - even without considering the Lords debates I've linked - make it pretty obvious it's controversial!

@BellesAndGraces

It's not controversial though, 90% of people agree

@mitogoshigg as per the guardian only 54% support the idea of vat on school fees.

and 90% of people?? there must have been huge record breaking voter at the poles, except voter turnout throughout all the UK was only 60%.
so no 90% of the populace do not agree with this policy.

Yes, yes it is. Whether you agree with it or not:
We are one of a very few countries who tax education
Children from independent schools are now being forced into another school, mid year, and often facing hostile reception
It's unclear as to whether this will actually raise revenue given the sheer volume that private schools will claim back
Independent schools will often go over and above - supporting the local community by loaning facilities or renting at subsidy, offering scholarships etc. how long will that last do you think?

A recent poll in the Guardian found:

14% strongly disagree with VAT on fees
7% slightly disagree
25% neither agree nor disagree
21% slightly agree
33% strongly agree with VAT on fees

'slightly more than 50% of the population support it, following a government disinformation campaign' doesn't stop it from being controversial.

'Controversial' refers to the level of public debate and strength of feeling on opposing sides. That's what the word means.

If say 97% supported it, I might agree that consensus overrides the strength of disagreement, but 54% support certainly allows for 'controversial' to be used where there is strong disagreement and debate.

Wasn't it a survey carried out by independent schools that actually showed more people did not support them and were happy for the additional taxes?

So you may not have been asked but they did try to get a representative responnse and even that didn't work...

You know most of the population really don't give this much thought?

My kids are at private school so I am aware of it of course. But I am not self centered enough to think that someone with kids at a state school is going to be wringing their hands about this

It’s not controversial, it’s not even on the radar for the vast majority of people - they aren’t interested in such a niche tax.
Surveys can show anything you want them to depending on who you survey.

Oh, and 'I personally like this idea' also doesn't stop a policy from being controversial.

Dictionaries are quite useful. You can even look a word up on your phone.

This was a policy in the Labour manifesto and the party was elected with a huge majority. You can argue about tactical voting and turnout and whatnot, but the facts of our system is that Labour has a large mandate for its policies, including this one. It’s not controversial in the scheme of “things the party in power has done” - for example, BoJo removing the whip from grandee MPs who expressed any mild discomfort on the brexit bill.

But the controversial nature of it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't matter if it isn't law, as @SuzieNine explained.

It's this kind of attitude that's not doing you any favours.

I'm not looking for any favours. As a net tax contributor, I've always been the one doing the UK favours. But I don't really feel like it now.

So when people come out with arsy comments like 'Definition of solipsism right here', I'll respond in kind.

This is true. It's completely and entirely on Labour.

Thank you for that, I hadn't read those debates before and they raise some excellent points. The policy will of course plod on regardless unless the legal case has effect, as there is too much face to be lost by changing direction without being forced.