VAT on private school fees does not infringe human rights.

[CrocusesFlowering]

So the Court of Appeal have rejected the appeal by parents.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/private-school-vat-appeal-high-court-ruling-human-rights-b2928803.html
Can it be taken further now?

None of that is relevant to the legal analysis though - a barrier doesn't need to be new to be a breach of someone's human rights. Either financial barriers to accessing private education are unlawful or they're not.

Also what is your definition of "working"? Why was schools increasing their fees by way over inflation every year fine and still counted as working but the VAT breaks it somehow? Do you have in mind a correct number of people who should afford it?

How PP feels about the affordability of private school education for her or others isn’t the legal point though.

There is a barrier of affordability to all who want to access private education (if everyone could afford it, there would be many more private schools, no doubt!). This is recognised in the judgement:

… both cases, the impact is the same: it makes the fees unaffordable for a proportion of parents currently sending their children to private schools. This puts them in the same position in which the great majority of parents already find themselves: their options are limited to those which the state makes available free of charge.

There is something toxic in the national psyche about success, and wanting to bring others down.

In other nations such as Germany, private school users get a tax rebate; in recognition that they are not drawing on state services.

This level, cool headed, sensible, logical approach is impossible in the UK.

Something toxic in the national psyche?

And you were complaining about schadenfreude on X??

The objective of this tax - as with most taxes - is to increase spending on strained public services. Do I think it will raise as much as the initial projection? No, because I doubt any tax in the history of ever has done so (see stately homes with bricked up windows to avoid a Window Tax a century or three ago) But it will raise some revenue.

It’s not toxic to think that you would like to see spending on schools, local housing etc increased and note that taxation will be required for this and to vote accordingly.

This isn’t about raising taxes!

It’s about damaging an education system Labour are ideologically against.

25 thousand kids displaced and not even a blink.

This is ideological hatred of private schools - nothing more.

Of course that isn't the main objective of the tax. If they wanted to raise money to spend on public services and were serious about it then they absolutely wouldn't bother with such a miniscule tax that probably won't raise much at all and actually risks costing the taxpayer more than it raises.

It's like the claims around tackling inequality. Surely the first thing you would do if you were serious about this is seek to address the tax payer funded inequality in the state sector. A sector you have much more control over and ultimately where children are being failed up and down the country. I went to a failing school myself and I can tell you that I didn't care that the private schools provided better facilities than the naice state school, I just wanted a decent education. Why were my friends who lived across town entitled to one when our parents paid the same amount of tax? Where are the big education reforms needed to help kids like me? Why on rather are they wasting time and energy fiddling around the edges with this private school VAT nonsense? Anyone that doesn't think this is anything but a toxic ideology needs to ask themselves these important questions.

People will have differing views VAT on private eduation. The discussion here was about if it breaches human rights law. The current legal case wasnt upheld. There seems a number of reasons why this is.
*Both offering private education and acessing it remains possible. VAT makes it unaffordable to some, but it has always been unaffordable to many. It also makes the financial model for private schools more chalenging, but many schools remain financially viable. VAT is not the only tax that impacts private school affordability or the viability of private schools. Courts are going to be very cautious about limiting primary legislation that impacts taxation choices.
*You cannot argue that VAT impacts children's ability to access education because a free state education is available to all. If it is argued that state education is not appropriate for children with SEND or parents who prefer education of a religious character that would apply to those who rely on state education regardless of VAT. It is a different case.

• The services provided by numerous businesses are subject to VAT. I just had my boiler serviced and some minor remedial work done. I paid VAT on this. The goverment extended VAT to specific educational services that previously didnt have to pay. People may disagree with that change, but it isnt a tax that is specific to private education. Other businesses have to levy VAT on their services. It impacts the affordability of many goods and services and the financial viability of many businesses. It isn't a selective barrier to the affordability or viability of private education.

100% @Owlbookend

@Bargepole45
Of course that isn't the main objective of the tax.

That’s your view. You are entitled to it.

However, PP stated that there was “something toxic in the national psyche” which was a hell of a claim to make about a VAT rise, when taxation changes are absolutely BAU for governments trying to fund public services.

Does VAT being levied on a sector = hatred?
Do current and previous goverments hate electricians, clothes retailers, plumbers ....?

I do not disagree for one moment that there are issues with state education. Nor do I think that the revenue raised by VAT alone will resolve them.

However, improvements in state education need funding and additional revenue will be needed. Tax increases are very unpopular as is the reallocation of funding from other sources (for example pension provision). There are a multitude of threads on mumsnet highlighting issues with education, but there are also a multitude of threads where people say taxes are too high. So we seem stuck. Improvements need paying for.

Fiscal policy is rarely completely neutral. Governments increase levies on activities they wish to discourage and reduce them on activities they wish to encourage. Sometimes they go even further and actively subsidize things they wish to support, e.g., corporate bailouts of various flavors. It is quite clear that, in increasing taxes on private schools, the Labour government wished to discourage the use of private schools, more so than they wished to discourage other activities they could have taxed.

Two things can be true at the same time.

Tax rises are BAU and arguably needed.

Some modifications made to the tax regime are done so for ideological or ethical reasons and it is a well known mechanism to influence public behaviour. This has been true for alcohol and tobacco products for example. The state decides that these are bad things, cause harm to society so specifically targets them with tax increases and special taxes. Private education is viewed by this government as a negative thing. Adding VAT isn't a politically neutral move nor is it the most obvious way that a government would look to raise money.

The toxic psyche comment is valid because unlike alcohol and tobacco it is harder to demonstrate that the tax will actually raise any meaningful money in the long term or that private schools actively harm society, especially in the context of a state system where inequality and failing to meet needs is rife. Why tackle private schools specifically when there are bigger fish to fry? The move is absolutely laced with envy and toxicity. Screw the people being failed as long as nobody gets more privilege than me.

I do think looking to the law to prove the point won't work. The government charges VAT on energy bills whilst claiming they want to keep bills down. The courts can't change bad policy just because it's bad.

Goodluck - Starmer said the VAT will pay for housing not schools.

With regards to tax, they need increasing for lower incomes; at the same time welfare needs cutting. Taxes for middle and low incomes are some of the lowest in Europe.

This combination would do wonders for public finances and provide a rocket boost for the economy.

Good points well made.

I would highlight that alcohol and tobacco are not intrinsic human rights; whereas education is deemed to be by the ECHR.

This is the infringement. Using tax policy to interfere with that right.

@PinkFruitbat i noted on a different thread that people in the UK pay less tax than those in Scandanavia (Sweden & Denmark are your key comparators), but receive poorer services. Society makes choices. You talk about taxing those on low incomes. The comparators you reference focus on average earners.

Higher earners tend to use less public services yet pay proportionately more tax.

I would suggest that the 93% using state schools pay more tax to improve them; as opposed to wanting the 7% who don’t use them to pay.

That sounds fair.

Anyway going back to the main issue. Human rights law is about a right to an education not a right to a private education. I understand peoples arguments against VAT even though i dont necessarily agree with them. However, to me for the reasons i outlined above a legal challenge if this nature seems very unlikely to be upheld.

I think this quote just illustrates a difference in values. I believe a functioning educated society benefits all. I am paying taxes to support that.
You see taxation as payment for a service received. It is a different view on life and society.

Denmark pays proportionately more tax but importantly has higher gross salaries. Put bluntly they are a richer country. So people can pay more tax and take home a comparable amount of money to people in the UK. That's why I hate these comparisons. If we paid that proportion of tax we would be taking home far less money each month than our Danish equivalents. It's easy to pay more tax when there is more money going round.

You’re right; high earners are selfish for wanting some recognisable return for their high tax contributions.

Whereas receivers of welfare and large amounts of state support are entirely selfless and full grateful for everything received.

We therefore need to lower expectations in terms of state services and welfare; because we cannot afford it!

Hoorah, back on topic.

I agree; a legal win seems unlikely, either at the SC or in Europe.

Yes, we aren't Denmark nor are we Norway, yet we always see these countries referenced on threads like these. Norway's GDP per capita is 60% higher than ours for example. Of course they can afford better public services, tax people more and their population can still take home a decent amount to live on. They are richer. It's like looking at people that earn more than you and wonder how they can save more money than you as a proportion of their income and still afford nice things. They have more money! It's that simple.

"threads like these" is interesting... this thread is (trying to be!) about the high court VAT school fees judgement and has indeed stayed largely on that topic.

Personally I would be delighted to have no discussion of European taxation policies - Denmark, France, whatever!

I wasn't the first to mention Scandinavian countries.

I understand what you are getting at but inevitably this will bleed into other topics as it's a controversial and ultimately the motive for the implementation of the VAT is relevant to some of the legal debate. Is it just a BAU tax regime change as per many others or is it specifically targeting private schools for ideological reasons. Are they using this as a constructive method of effectively abolishing private school probation except for the very wealthy? How does this interplay with the ECHR?

Unless you just literally want people stating that it's unlikely that any appeals will be successful and leaving it at that then I think you have to accept conversation will widen.