Read this an tell me you still agree with VAT on school fees

[Sally20099]

DS is 3 years from finishing private school which includes 2 years in the sixth form. DD was due to start same senior school in Sept. Both went to private prep but due to talk of VAT on fees, and certainty of Labour govt for some time, we actually investigated sending DD to state secondary school. Only one in the entire city is rated outstanding but DD has got a place so we have decided to send her there. It’s very good academically but obviously hasn’t got the facilities of the private option. Currently school fees are £19,300 per year (before VAT) for DS so we have saved a reasonable sum by going to state school with DD. DS will finish at his school and we could afford DD fees (even with VAT) so we will instead put £12k a year extra in savings for DD and then spend the rest of the savings on an extra winter holiday. We would have never looked at state schools without the VAT policy and instead we have taken the place of someone at an outstanding rated school. Im not posting to annoy anyone, I wanted those who unequivocally support this to see some of the consequences. We also know a reasonable number of children in DS year who can’t afford fees with VAT and are taking their children out of private and going into state - and taking more places at the limited good schools. Its probably no surprise that most families in private schools happen to also live in good areas, meaning catchment areas tend to work out quite well when they go state.

No. I know of people who choose private education for the experience rather than the outcome, and I agree with you that there are cases where schooling can neither hide a diamond or make one out of a stone. But as a general rule, private education can be very effective in elevating mediocrity, which is not only 'unfair' but also not great for society, as we need to be nurturing talent to achievement not facilitating people to buy it. I also take the point that the policy doesn't address the 'problem' of the very wealthy elite who will remain unaffected by it. However I don't think the policy is a way to 'fix' inequality as much as a withdrawal of facilitating it. Thank you for your response by the way. Its good to read a measured argument from the other side.

I didn't say less income tax was a good thing. I'm strongly in favour of income tax. I said that if a few people decide to leave the UK because of this policy it will make little if any difference. People in the elite group, so important and sought after that they can cause the movement of whole businesses, will find this extra VAT affordable so are moot to the discussion.

The people priced out of private schooling are not the elite (which has been pointed out by many against the policy). They are typically replacable people in higher paid but relatively ordinary roles, with people below them happy to full their shoes should they leave.

Any industry needs the talent, its not about one elite person. I can see I won’t get anywhere with this, do you mind me asking if your career is in the public sector?

Have you noticed we’re discussing how the negatives of this policy are not going to be that bad and not the financial positives it’s supposed to bring in. On a purely financial basis, would you still support this policy if after 3 years it meant a change in behaviour and 8% drop in PS places being taken up resulting in costing the state?

“The people priced out of private schooling are not the elite.”

What is your definition of elite? To me it is households with over 300k income and I think it doesn’t make sense to pay for private school plus VAT anymore. Given best uni places are going to state school pupils and tutoring is far cheaper etc. If enough of these households cut back hours and some income too and fill pensions instead, we will all feel it.

We're discussing the negatives rather than the positives because those who believe there are positives are not typically bringing those points to the table to try and influence thinking.
For one thing they tend to be based in ideology and principle which can be argued incessantly with no movement from either side given these are beliefs rather than opinions. For another, it's not really necessary to argue in favour of something that's a done deal about which we can simply be quietly satisfied.
Yes I would support this policy on principle because I think the principle outweighs any disadvantage presented so far.
No my career is not public sector its in third.

“For another, it's not really necessary to argue in favour of something that's a done deal about which we can simply be quietly satisfied.“

The OBR hasn’t signed off yet?
There may be legal challenges as well.

Is it really a done deal? I am not so sure.

Labour claim it’s not based on ideology, beliefs and principles and is based on financial logic to raise revenue. My argument is that this is nonsense, so I think we’re dare I say agreeing here. It’s actually refreshing for someone to admit their support for this is based on ideology.

Its certainly not a done deal, there is the OBR to begin with and then the ECHR after that. It likely falls foul of both of these.

Every policy by any party is going to be based in its ideology, or what would be the point in having different political parties? I doubt anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of politics would imagine that choosing to bring in additional revenue from businesses whose existence also happens to be a contributor to social inequality is just a huge coincidence. However that doesn't mean its not a source of revenue. I've said this before, but this policy impacts a very small number of the electorate, and even some of those people are in favour of it. The majority of everyone else either thinks it's a good idea or couldn't care less because it's nothing to do with their lives.
Outside of MN threads, where the demographic distorts perception of public opinion, this is seen as nothing more than a fairly harmless way of bringing in an extra bob or two while striking a soft blow against wealth inequality. Of course Labour did it.

Well yes, but the ideology Labour promoted the policy on us that it was a fully costed revenue raiser to fund 6500 teachers (amongst other things) and not a net cost to fund some vain attempt at social engineering and result in less teachers per pupil.

It’s all irrelevant anyway, the future of the policy is a matter of financial prudence in the case of the OBR and a point of legality in the case of the ECHR. It very clearly doesn’t pass either test, it will have to be dropped. I’m always curious how people justify these types of things to themselves and you’ve been very interesting to chat to, so thank you for your time.

"Is it really a done deal? I am not so sure."

I think it's very unlikely that it hasn't been fully "lawyered"..

Imagine screwing your daughter out of the same privileges your son got despite the fact you can afford the fees. Cracking parenting 👏

Wow.
you can’t seriously want VAT to be added to already prohibitively expensive nursery fees? That is insane.
Who do you think would be impacted the most - 100% women. Do you not want women to have the option to return the the workplace after maternity leave?
Do you not think that children would find themselves dragged further into poverty, particularly in single parent families if they were unable to.
Im not even going to start with University other than to say I wholeheartedly disagree.

Well thank god 👍

I would say an individual with and/or joint income over 100K. I don't know anyone with an income over 100K....and for that matter I am not sure I know many with a joint income of over 100k.

That’s why the policy is so popular with many because if you aren’t in that position it’s hard to understand the economics and motivation of it all.

I earn 200k and work with dozens of people on over 100k. My boss earns 500k + bonus which can be up to 100%. She is a EU citizen but currently based in the UK.

Clearly she has plenty of money however the idea of tax on school fees and other Labour plans for taxation has led her to believe that the UK is not supportive of higher earners so she is looking at other countries to base herself and her family in.When she moves she’ll take her job with her so that’s £100,000’s in lost tax paid in the UK. She’s not alone in thinking like this. I’ve heard others discussing similar.

At this level many jobs are portable and the simple truth is that Labour are encouraging many to leave.

One unfortunate consequence I feel the government have not thought about is the impact on women’s careers this will have.

A lot of people choose private for the convenience of wrap around care at a young age and the option of most activities kids might want to do under the same roof. Yes, it is possible to go state and still achieve getting your kids all these extracurricular activities out with school but at what cost to your personal time? Best solution then becomes the low earner (which is usually the mother) quitting their job or going part time in order to juggle these extras in their kids lives. I know people make it work but at what cost to their mental health.

As for those of you saying private school doesn’t make a difference in who ends up earning more, that’s absolutely right. A good one however instils some confidence in people who lacked it to begin with and could help with increasing one’s personal earning power (no way to prove this though).

i agree the policy does not make any sense and in the long run, cause more harm than good in unintended places.

It maybe the case that it’s encouraging those with higher salaries to leave but that might actually help some of us, as house prices might start to fall..

Your post is laughable. Ofsted outstanding is dubious at best. Hundreds of high schools are brilliant and plenty outstanding are not. You clearly have no idea. And extra winter holiday? Omg you are clearly wealthy in a world where winter holidays are not an option for most.
You are proof of why vat should apply

With all due respect in my area the academics of even highly selective privates when compared like for like are similar with state top sets.
What £500 a week in term time costs you is yes all the extra curricular stuff but surely not all women are working such long hours that they can't take their kids to these things?

Well it's not because the women are working such long hours but because both parents are working such long hours. Why would it be the woman's job to do this?

@12345change but those rich people are the ones paying all of the tax for the huge benefit bill in the U.K., so good luck when people like that leave and the economy will still be a mess so you won't be able to afford high interest rates even when house prices fall...

Well that’s a problem for when and if it happens which frankly I doubt it, the point I was making is there may be some advantages.

Rich people trying to blackmail the rest of us because they so don’t like a government policy is disgraceful - if you want to change minds do it by winning the argument rather blackmail!

I appreciate you may not know people like this however you need to understand it is not blackmail it is simple reaction to economic policy.

The person I alluded to earns all their money through PAYE. They paid over £400,000 income tax last year. They have no real ties to the UK. No family here, few friends etc.

They don’t need to change government policy because they are not tied to the UK. They’ll simply move and base themselves somewhere else and pay taxes to a different countries government if they feel the economic environment here is not suitable.

In addition to paying eye watering amounts of tax, these people also use a tiny number of public services compared with the average person. The pounding have to lose many like that before there’s a big hole in the Treasury finances.

Well taking that to its logical conclusion, perhaps we should dispense with a democracy entirely and just have the highest tax payers dictating all policy to their preference lest something is introduced that they disagree with. Because they could leave at any time over anything that displeases them, couldn't they?
The electoral system resulted in a government with this policy as a very clear intent. If we start fiddling with policy because a tiny percentage of people object and we're too frightened of losing their money not to give in, what's the point of us voting at all?

Did you not read my post?

It is also worth noting that the person I referred to isn’t even eligible to vote in a UK general election. They simply react to the economic conditions created by those in government without having any say over matters whatsoever.