Labour’s plans for VAT on Private Schools

[Busydadof2]

The Labour Party has proposed introduction of VAT on private schools.

In the scheme of things the money they will bring in from this is tiny compared with total expenditure on state schools, while it will drive more burden on the state system as some parents leave private schools. I think this is a populist ploy to get traditional Labour voters to vote for what is in any other sense a centrist party.

Have you considered signing this petition to make sure the policy gets scrutinised and the weight of public sentiment against it is known?

Change.org petition: Stop Labour from adding 20% VAT to private school fees and forcing kids to change schools

www.change.org/p/stop-labour-from-adding-20-vat-to-private-school-fees-and-forcing-kids-to-change-schools

Various perspectives from the signatories of this vote come to mind and resonate with our own situation, including this: “I work in a state school with over 30 in a class and oversubscribed. My 2 kids went or go to private schools and we have sacrificed loads to do this. We are NOT wealthy, many of the kids at the school I work at live in bigger houses and have much more disposable income than we do. We chose to send our kids to private school rather than live in a bigger house instead of our semi detached on a main road. We holiday in the UK every year and I work full time. I buy my clothes on the high street or in charity shops. Many parents at the school my kids attend are in exactly the same situation. I agree there are some very wealthy parents there too and the addition of VAT will not even make an impact on them, they will pay it without batting an eyelid. All this will do is push the kids like ours back into an already oversubscribed state system, increase class sizes even more and create a bigger divide as private education will become truly elitist.”

My comment was in response to a poster saying that Finland have banned private schools. They haven’t. They subsidise them.

Well leaving over 5 years isn't such a bad thing. Gives Labour time to improve state schools and suggests most will wait till the end of education phase, which is less disruptive for children

They place greater importance on working and saving hard to give their children the best possible education
Greater than people who send their children to state schools?

"Greater than people who send their children to state schools?"

In one case parents spend money on their children's education that is solely for that purpose and will never be recouped.

In the other the cost is a sound investment in its own right, and the greater the stratification in state schools the greater the expected return.

I would not have made the underlying generalisation personally, but as it was made, and since you ask, does that help?

No, it doesn't. You said some parents place greater importance on working and saving hard than - what? A car finance deal? It doesn't really make sense. The 'anyone can do it line' is completely untrue - some people, no matter how many jobs they have, will never be able to afford school fees. And many people don't see private school as the best education anyway. You sound as if you think people who do everything they can to send their children to private school are uniquely hard working and self-sacrificing but that's so patently untrue.

I believe Finland has no fee paying schools at all, so no comparison

IME privately educated primary kids go to grammar school if they can get in rather than independent secondary.Better grades and viewed more favourably for competitive uni courses.

Also, it's "fewer" not less. I know it's pedantic but for some reason it really pisses me off on a school tread.

Not so great yourself, are you?

The IFS one is flawed. They themselves are distancing themselves from it. It isn't just the immediate in year switches, its the people who were planning private from reception, year 7, year 12 etc who will now pivot and use state schools instead (therefore costing the state when they were going to pay the same tax and not use the state school service).

There are fee paying schools in Finland.

Here’s an example
https://ishelsinki.fi/fee-schedule-2021-2022/#:~:text=The%20International%20School%20of%20Helsinki,of%20the%20school's%20annual%20expenses.

https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/finland/organisation-private-education

They don’t look at schools anymore.

They aim at diversity. So school is irrelevant.

Only 2% of schools in Finland are private, and they have to demonstrate an educational or cultural need. It's a very different system.

My comments have been in response to posters claiming that private fee paying schools don’t exist in Finland, which is categorically untrue. When people are discussing the merits of introducing VAT to UK school fees, I’m merely pointing out that numerous posters are basing their opinions on factual inaccuracies. We still have posters believing that VAT and charitable status are linked.

But you need to look at the qualitative differences. Only 2%, and only for specific need is different than the situation in the UK. If the only private schools in the UK were for children with SEN or a specific cultural group (eg in Finland for traditional Sámi language) and were partly supported by the state that would be different.
Then again, state education in Finland is generally more equitable (as in higher standards across the board) than in the UK.

As in - the situation between Finnish and British private schools is not comparable

As you say, categorically true. There certainly are fee-paying schools in Finland. And the families don't have to pay VAT on them.

There's also MUCH more tax levied on lower and middle-earners. The idea of an amazing universal state provision funded by "taxing the rich" is just that, an idea. Never been seen, anywhere in the world.

I could deal with somebody arguing "let's ALL pay more tax so we can transform state education". That elusive argument....yet to be seen on these pages, or anywhere. In that context, banging on about Finland is about as relevant as invoking quotes from Star Trek.

The IFS research is hopeless. "the rich will pay, they always do".... based on...observations of grandparents' choices in the 1990s and early 2000s.

As though today's parents (1) can be assumed to behave the same (2) are unaffected by fiscal drag, core inflation, student debt, house prices and mortgage rates.

And as though it's possible to extrapolate demand. "Look, you accepted a price rise from £3 to £4. I can assume you'll pay £5 and £6; I can also assume you'll pay £8." At the level of Economics for Dummies - this is a massive fail.

It's like walking towards a clifftop blindfold. "I haven't reached the edge yet, therefore I'm safe to keep going".

Yeh I’m not getting robust behavioural projection there

The survey to parents may have flaws but at least the question is posed

It’s hard to know behavioural impact, take the effectiveness of pandemic stuff or at the other end if the scale 20p on plastic bags

People change behaviour, hard to predict entirely, but it’s best to ask

Well it's far more egalitarian than the UK so lower and middle classes mean something completely and utterly different.

Not much, really, see below.

But beside the point. "be like Finland by taxing the rich" is like saying "be like McDonalds by becoming a clown". It's a complete non-sequitur based on rumour not evidence. The facts are:

• Finland's schools are funded only a fraction more than ours per pupil
• their teacher training is funded more generously
• their taxes are much higher particularly for lower and middle earners.

For more reading try this: The truth about Finland’s great schools: Yes, kids do get homework, and no, they didn’t stop teaching individual subjects. - The Washington Post

"Most efforts to explain why Finland’s schools are better than others... fail to see these interdependencies in Finnish society that are essential in understanding education as an ecosystem."

Original post about Finland was mine and I don’t know where you have seen suggestion there to tax the rich or that any schools are to have VAT on their fees ?the point in there was that their VAT on already registered VAT products /services is 24% not 20% as in UK and that if say UK were to raise VAT on the ones that already registered VAT by 1% that will bring much more money then taxing private schools as well as will be much fairer distribution between ALL in UK and not expecting only PS parents to pay to improve state schools ,they indeed also pay much higher taxes there -again all of them -the problem I see in the current debate of 2 sides -neither are prepared to compromise on anything -one side wants private school parents to foot the bill to improve state schools without making any contribution themselves which I don’t see as fair as well as can’t see how that can improve anything in state schools apart from creating more chaos but other party does not appear to want to do anything either -just leave all as is as long as they can afford to pay for their kids schools not really care what state are state schools are in -the potential solution as I see might have been to increase tax for ALL thus it will be a fair contribution between all to improve what we currently have (that only if actual government does not waste all that raised money on hell knows what instead of actual making a positive change -but that’s a separate topic

Agree with all, except that I haven't seen a single person against the education tax who " does not appear to want to do anything either -just leave all as is as long as they can afford to pay for their kids schools not really care what state are state schools are in"

I'm very supportive of state schools. Literally, through my taxes paying several times over for places I don't use. Also morally, because I'm passionate about education and it's immoral / embarrassing that so many children are let down by their schools, communities, families and society in general. Finally selfishly, because I and my family are better off in a society where everyone gets properly educated.

If we want to spend money on state schools, it should come from everybody (like in Finland) not just by picking on the people that don't even use them.

Ah a typically hyperbolic contribution from one of the main protagonists of the 'pitchforks coming for you next' comments. How can you expect people to take your posts seriously?

Do you believe it's true, or not, that some kids are pulled out of state schools and go independent having experienced bullying? Do you believe it's OK if that option is made harder, and those children are forced back into the original school? And do you think that situation will be helped if children in the state school pick up on the sentiments expressed by the "really nice" people sneering at them on this forum"?

As for pitchforks etc...that's a general remark aimed at class warriors. I don't think it quite compares, for unpleasantness, with

• "little Tarquin"
• "they won't be able to get into a decent school so they'll be shoved into sink schools but meh"
• "They'll have to go to crap state school first" @ArseInTheCoOpWindow

As with all opponents of the education tax...none of us want anything but good schools. It's just obvious we don't get more children attending good schools, by forcing children out of good schools, and encouraging closure of good schools (that don't cost taxpayers a bean).

Perish the thought they might have had to spend most of their school life in a state school 🙄