Private school : VAT : labour

[Usernamerequired123]

I have recently come across this petition. Not sure if many of you have seen this.

https://www.change.org/p/stop-labour-from-adding-20-vat-to-private-school-fees-and-forcing-kids-to-change-schools?recruiter=false&utmsource=shareepetition&utmcampaign=psffcomboshareeinitial&utmmedium=whatsapp&utmmcontent=washarecopy376858822en-GB%3Acv451328&recruiteddbyid=44b8f4b0-d22c-11ee-82d6-61cc5900aa84&shareebanditexp=initial-37685882-en-GB

I assume those in favour also realise this is likely to also apply to the send private schools too? And other such places. Not just the likes of some high achieving leafy green London centric private school.

And that those children no longer in private will need state school places, and let's face it they aren't going to be going to the local 'requires improvement' state option are they? Some of the catchments in the outstanding and/or highest achieving schools are going to be getting a bit smaller, more so in certain areas.

Yes. Realise this. There are state alternatives and pressure should be put on these to achieve better..... like in NI and significant parts of Scotland!

I suspect there are plenty of labour politicians and voters who use private education for their own children.

So whether they actually get it through is also debatable.

It's not like parties make so called pledges and then don't see them through, is it?!

You're urging VAT on private education that you've used, because you're saying it's an unfair advantage, but now you say it wasn't an advantage at all for your children?

Did you, or didn't you, pay VAT on that private school? Because if you didn't (and I know you didn't, because no country taxes education) then perhaps you should. Was the "other country" the UK? In which case please use the link I just shared and pay up. If you won't, then why not....why would you demand others pay taxes that you've been "lucky" enough to be exempt from?

Then you said "state school parents are more supportive of the system because of grammar schools. Do NI Grammar schools have more resources? You've said they have more private donations (VAT-free) - and you've said that's both a good thing and a bad thing?

Now you've said "the taxpayer contributes" to independent school. Er....kind of the point....the taxpayer doesn't pay.

Your story sounds, at best, a muddle.

Labour’s policy planning.

This is laughable. This is the Party who voted to abolish private schools entirely. They dropped that idea when they realised it was nigh on impossible. Then they said their plan was to abolish charitable status. It took a while for it to dawn on them that this would have no impact on VAT, but they eventually realised and dropped that idea. This VAT idea is just the latest idea. It’s quite clear that there is no “planning” involved in these decisions; the only “plan” is to do anything to harm private schools. It’s nothing to do with improving the state sector. How was abolishing the private sector ever going to improve the state system?

You are not wrong.

The population peak varies across the country, often in more rural areas that peak has already passed and some of the challenges you describe already exist in some of those areas.

There are significant SOCIAL advantages to private education. My children went to a high ranking private school in Scotland and it was a very positive experience. However when we moved to Ni and they entered the education system here, their literacy was significantly behind child who have been educated here, not in private schools. My point being private didn't mean better educationally!
I did not pay VAT and to be honest at the time they started I was unaware that was the case, however ethically, I feel that is wrong as it was my choice to use the school rather than the local state schools. If the fees had have been unaffordable due to VAT I simply would have accepted we could not afford it. In fact there were two other private schools we would have liked buy could not have afforded. That is life.
Yes NI grammar schools have more resources which obviously benefits my children and the way they are set up parents contribute to this. It is however unfair that secondary schools do not have the same resources and the Department of Education in NI should be addressing this. I also have been quite clear that I feel the eleven plus is unfair in general.

Surely it is obvious why, in an ideal world, there would be no private sector in education? Giving children a level playing field and equal opportunities?

It makes perfect sense that a Labour plan would have that as a starting point but then work through more pragmatic options that could be implemented quickly.

Nah, you should just back-pay the VAT you want everyone else to pay. If you can't afford it, work harder or get a second or third job (is what pro-VAT advocates are telling all private school parents to do). I don't believe you would have been content for VAT to put your historical choices out of reach.

I'm afraid your position is 100% hypocritical - "privilege" for me, not for thee and yah-boo.

You've advocated for more private resources, and you've advocated for more resources being unfair. You've said NI is good because there are more people advocating for grammar schools, and you've said that grammar schools are unfair. Total muddle.

Surely it's obvious why, in an ideal world, parents should be encouraged to invest in education for their children given the social benefit ALL economists identify? Only Marxists think there's no social benefit in education.

Surely it's obvious that, given state education costs 3-4x the per-pupil VAT exemption, while earning average school fees generates a further 8x the per-pupil VAT exemption, that we'd want to encourage as many families as possible to choose that route?

I just want good schools. I'm all for levelling-up. This levelling-down rubbish should be consigned to the history books of the Soviet Union.

It is entirely possible to be reflective on my own situation without being hypocritical. Sometimes we have to accept change even if we don't like it.
I am advocating that ALL schools should be properly resourced, with the secondary schools brought up to the standard of the grammars, not the resources removed from the grammars.

I understand what you're saying but, in my mind, education is a common good. There is a positive economic and social value to society in making it universal.

It's not about levelling down.

Educating all citizens equally would make society and the economy more efficient and productive - we would all understand each other and value each other equally.

Obviously that is simplistic, and veering into socialism as you suggest, but economics works on the assumptions of perfect information/knowledge. That is essential for efficient markets.

When a small group of wealthy families opt out of universal provision then it is only natural their children perceive themselves as different (better?) and don't develop an understanding of how the majority of the population live and work. This is inefficient as well as socially unhelpful.

I appreciate the debate!

Charity law since I think about 1500 in the UK has been that certain things were charitable (even if not done for the poor) - relief of poverty, religion, education. Labour changed that a bit to say places like private schools if charities and opera houses even though doing charitable works (ie education which per se even if the child has a rich parents was always seen as a moral good in any context) they had to have public benefit too - hence requirement for rich schools to have bursaries and poor private schools to do at least something to help the poor -access to the grounds at weekends etc.

I still agree with the centuries old law that education of any kind is a moral good, but we are where we are. The result of private schools having less money will mean the charitable ones (which is most of the better ones) will offer fewer bursaries and that is lawful as it is based on resources the school has; but that will be no problem for most voters.

The problem with the 20% on VAT is that those who are well of will just pay it, the poor at those schools will lose out and the many in the middle who could not cope with a 20% increase will be hit. These are a group that are being hit again and again including under the Tories in the last few years - they now have 9% graduate tax/loan, they don't get a single person allowance any more, they only get 15 free hours for a 3 year old in term time not 30, they don't get child benefit, they have the highest tax burden in 70 years. They tend to work very hard with no over time and take a lot of years to qualify too and I do feel these women who are on about £100k - £125k are not really rich as kings given at least 50% of what they earn is taken by the state anyway, sometimes 60% and then take child care off that etc... No one has any sympathy for them of course and they are regarded as being as rich as kings when they are just head teachers or doctors or lawyers etc - so middle class professionals and they are choosing to pay school fees. I just feel they have been hit again and again and again by the state. When my father had me at university he could covenant money tax free to make my tiny tiny minimum grant up to the maximum. You cannot even do that these days. To whack another £8k a year (20% of £20k x 2 children) on these parents basically as yet more tax is awful. If they are in places where they are jobs they may already be paying utterly vast sums just to buy a 4 bed house too in Stamp Duty Land Tax. They have been taxed until the pips squeak under the Tories. Labour will be even worse.

Vote Conservative.

...and you're saying four specific things (1) you're sufficiently content to have chosen whatever advantage you gained from private school in the past, but now you think they're divisive (2) you're happy to have had that experience VAT-free for your kids but you want the next cohort and all future parents to pay VAT, which I'm sure is nothing to do with the fact you're now in the grammar system (3) you want the government to pay to raise the standards of secondaries up to the grammars and you want other people i.e. private school parents to pay for it (4) you still talk-the-talk of how unfair divisive education systems are but you're content to choose grammar for yourself.

Let's let others decide if the h-word applies.

"It's not about levelling down." Yes it is, it couldnt' be more obviously levelling down.

"Educating all citizens equally would make society and the economy more efficient and productive - we would all understand each other and value each other equally." That's not just veering into socialism, it's hard-red-hard-left dogma.

"economics works on the assumptions of perfect information/knowledge." No it doesn't. Economics is the science of costs and benefits, and includes the extensive study of uncertainty on both sides.

"When a small group of wealthy families opt out of universal provision then it is only natural their children perceive themselves as different (better?) and don't develop an understanding of how the majority of the population live and work. This is inefficient as well as socially unhelpful." Sorry, this is simply wild. There's no evidence anyone perceives themselves as better. there's no evidence having good schools is inefficient. There's ample evidence having better, richer education is a social benefit. Ideally we'd "level-up" and have loads of children having better, richer education...and I'm all for that....but this proposal does not get us there.

1. I have ALWAYS thought that private education is divisive and gives an unfair advantage to those that can afford it. Even, yes, when I chose to use it. What i object to is the government giving a VAT break to essentially condone this inequality. As I have said- if you want to pay for it do so, but don't expect to get help to do so.
2. VAT should have been charged when my children were in the private system. There is nothing I can do about the fact it wasn't. If I had not been able to afford the fees my children would have been in the state system- such is life. There are many tax loopholes have been closed over the years. This is what happens in a progressive society. 3)I believe all state schools should be properly resourced, whether academically selective or not. Children who are less academically able should not be disadvantaged within a state system. This is completely separate to a debate about resourcing for private schools and I stand by my point- if you want a private education you put your hand in your pocket and pay for it.
3. In NI 40% of children go to grammar schools, they are across the whole country. It isn't the same as in England. Plus as I have said- I believe academic selection is wrong.

We don’t live in an ideal world unfortunately. It makes more sense to work from the bottom up rather than the top down in this case. Improve state schools to such an extent that people don’t feel the need to use the private system. This plan does nothing to address the problems in the state system. It gives a more equal playing only by trying to drag everyone down to the same level.

Excellent post.
We are very lucky to have had the option of Private when the State option is a sink comp that even people who work there told us to avoid. Our DC are very lucky to have had that too.
Private schools should not be charities - ours isnt, its a Business and if the services it charges are vatable then thers not much to be done about that
Private schools should not be necessary, they can be divisive and ALL kids deserve a decent education with proper resources etc but until thats the case my DC come before my principles. DH was VERY anti Private until we started looking at Secondary schools for DD for Y7 and we visited both State and Private.
If school fees go up by 20% it will unfortunately impact people who can pay them now but who cant absorb that, especially if they have more than one child. What it wont stop if the parents of Eton or other Public School children sending their kids there because they wont even notice the extra cost.
I object to the vat on fees largely because I think it will make Private schools MORE elitist

Your post just proves my point exactly, that there’s an assumption that attending private school provides a superior education … they are “better schools” that the rest of the population could dream of “levelling-up” to.

It’s only natural that this misplaced superiority has the potential to cloud economic decision making - recruitment decisions, procurement choices, VAT proposals etc

in my mind, education is a common good.

Unless it’s provided by the private sector presumably?

It's not about levelling down.

It is. There’s nothing in the policy which will improve the state sector.

Educating all citizens equally would make society and the economy more efficient and productive

Making the economy more productive and efficient will only happen by improving the educational opportunities for the 94% in the state sector, not by harming the opportunities of the 6%. Making things “equal” does nothing to improve the situation if everyone is “equal” but at a low level.

It’s only natural that this misplaced superiority has the potential to cloud economic decision making

Plenty of poor economic decisions have been made by state educated people as well. You’re not going to stop poor decisions by only letting the state educated make those decisions.

You may have read something about superiority in the private sector, but I was very careful not to say it. I don't assume anything, and it's obvious that there is "superior education" in some parts of the state system. The top Oxbridge feeders are about 50/50 state and private school, and it's the same ones year-on-year, and not many people are complaining about the education provided by the state schools.

Your claim that absolute equality is "efficient" will take some proving, I'd really appreciate it if you'd try.

My position is parents' choosing is much more efficient. If that leads them to getting their education paid for by taxpayers or paying for it themselves, that's fine. The more "good or great" schools there are, the better

The 20% VAT would go back into the public purse and could be put to some use. If more children have to enter the state system- so be it! There is no automatic right to a private education. Plus the birth rate is dropping anyway!

@GiveMeCoffeeandTV

"Your post just proves my point exactly, that there’s an assumption that attending private school provides a superior education … they are “better schools” that the rest of the population could dream of “levelling-up” to.

It’s only natural that this misplaced superiority has the potential to cloud economic decision making - recruitment decisions, procurement choices, VAT proposals etc"

Wasn't Liz Truss state educated?!?!?!

(Point being, private/state education of those in power does not cause good/bad policy)

Your claim that absolute equality is "efficient" will take some proving, I'd really appreciate it if you'd try.

The idea that greater social mobility is associated with higher productivity and greater economic benefits isn't that controversial?

The question is what factors can improve our below-average social mobility.