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.

Yes. You're suggesting that the government should make policy with a view to what may or may not alienate the very wealthy and cause them to leave the UK. That if these people dislike a policy they will leave the country taking their taxes with them. So the government should keep this in mind and ensure that any policy does not unduly disadvantage them. I'm saying that in a democracy the government should be making policies based on majority interest and to prioritise the preferences of a tiny group would be against this.

So the person you refer to has no influence here through the democratic system, but you appear to be suggesting they should have a great deal of influence due to the money they contribute, because the government should be anticipating their reactions to the policy, rather than simply introducing it for the percieved good of the country.

How is it in the majority interest to push away the highest tax payers? How much of the £400,000 needed to replace that 1 person are you willing to fund each year?

One of the issues with our tax system is that we are reliant on a very small number of people to bankroll everyone else. Those people often have choices that others don’t have such as moving, working less etc. It is naive economic policy not to consider them when drafting tax laws.

The only alternative, and one that some other countries have adopted, is to tax lower/mid range earners a lot more. Currently
those earning under 50k in the UK pay very little tax.

Please explain how it is for the good of the country to lose such huge net contributors?

I would personally be happy to pay more income tax. From each according to their means.

I disagree with you on this. It is blackmail and that's how us "poor" people will see it, hence many have little sympathy for these rich people who have a tantrum and threaten to leave the country because they are being ask to pay VAT. Which in the scheme of things, for someone who is getting paid 200k plus (especially if their partner is too) is a drop in the ocean...people just don't care.

Also if they are not tied to this country they're probably avoiding tax anyway with help of a tax lawyer etc. It is happening and people will have to get over it and if some move countries then so be it!

Are you suggesting you’d be happy to pay more income tax just to ensure high earners are kicked out? What is the point of that?

You can pay more voluntary income tax now. How much extra voluntary tax did you pay last year as you clearly state you can afford to do so and people should pay according to their means.

just to ensure high earners are kicked out?

Nobody is ‘kicking out’ high earners. If high earners are economically mobile (especially if they are not tied to the UK by nationality) then they always have the choice to move elsewhere if they wish.

That’s fine but you won’t like it when the bills start landing. Removal of the personal allowance for all should cover it. Will you be OK with that? Or maybe remove all child benefit or all UC.

I don’t think you realise how much you are subsidised by higher earners. Without them the lower earners would simply not be able to fund the country between them, not even close.

As for tax avoidance well the people I know on huge salaries are all PAYE employed so don’t avoid a penny income tax.

My manager and our team of about 12 paid around £3m income tax last year. None use state schools, we all have private healthcare, no child benefit, no 30 hours funded nursery etc. We take precious little out of the public purse. Why would you want another country to benefit from what is in effect easy money from us? It makes no sense.

Of course they do but surely trying to retain them makes economic sense.

I'm saying I would prefer to pay more income tax as part of a taxation system where everyone contributed in accordance with their means in order that our collective needs were better met. And where undue and undemocratic prioritisation of the preferences of the privileged was avoided by reduces reliance on them.
I have no wish to see anyone 'kicked out' and wasnt aware that was what we were discussing? I thought we were talking about people with incomes that carry £400k tax burdens leaving of their own accord because they dont want to pay an additional 20% for school fees?
I'm not SE so unable to voluntarily over pay tax. I may make a donation to the government now their values align more closely with my own. However I may decide to continue instead to support charities whose work furthers social equality. I haven't decided as yet. However if you're trying to catch me out in hypocrisy, I'm afraid I can't help you there.

And if it’s not this policy then it will be something else that tips the balance. Eventually the grass always seems greener somewhere else.

It'd obviously be a nonsense for government to pursue this policy if it were to actually cost the taxpayer money.

But that's exceptionally unlikely. Private school fees have climbed obscenely over the last couple of decades with no impact at all on pupil numbers. It feels intuitively really odd that it would be this particular straw (rather than, say, the price fixing cartel which the schools have been both formally charged on and, as recently as lockdown, informally warned about) that would break the camel's back.

I'd honestly be perfectly content for the policy to be maintained even if the sums raised were very modest (provided, of course, it didn't go into loss making territory). The disproportionately great malign influence of the private schools is more or less unique to this country and long overdue some kind of checking. For me the last straw was again the lockdown period, when a tiny cabal led by the Johnsons (Boris and Carrie), Dom Cummings, & Michael Gove, backed up by Simon Case and cronies, ran everything in accordance with the various god complexes that their absurdly expensive education had bestowed upon them.

You don’t have to be SE to pay voluntary tax.

Anyone can make additional voluntary payments. Just Google it and you’ll find the government link to do so.

Unsurprisingly despite many claiming they’d be happy to pay more the total amount raised this way is minuscule which suggests people are not being entirely truthful.

With PAYE its a 'donation' to the treasury. I know how it works. Any hesitancy isn't from a lack of ability to Google the process, more a weighing up of how my additional contribution could be best used. As an individual my donation to the government would be a drop in the ocean. To be effective requires an increase from all those who can afford it. So in the absence of that, my money is arguably better spent at present in donating to third sector agencies who not only benefit those less advantaged in a cost effective way, but also save millions to the public purse, leaving more in the treasury. As I say, I'm undecided as yet.

Why do you think that's ridiculous? I can't imagine anyone other than the very rich being able to pay private school fees.

Because they were fine with elitism until they were priced out of it themselves.

That's the point, isn't it? They thought they were truly part of the elite until a couple of grand extra could go onto the price and they realised they might have to slum it with the rest of us.

I guess when they could afford it they just wanted to buy the best education they could afford. I doubt many of them (unless at Eton or such like) considered private education elitism. I
I don't disagree with the VAT policy per se but the timing for the children concerned is unkind. It should have begun at the start of a new school year ideally 2025 so that both parents and state schools can manage the transition.
As always it's the children who matter and who may suffer from both a change of school and the timing of it.

@5128gap - you are missing the point. This policy hurts the children of those high earners who are otherwise not asset rich and already pay too much proportionally in taxes. If they are mobile and other countries value them and their children more, of course they would leave. They can have a better quality of life elsewhere and keep more of their self made cash which is rightfully theirs. Many in this bracket did not inherit and just worked their way up.
Or do you want to close the borders too now? In true Soviet style?

This country took a lot of successful economic migrants who pay a ton of tax and have multiple passports either via birth or marriage. And no, we won’t be better off if they leave because many of them have contributed more than their fair share in taxes.

Please do not misrepresent my comments on this thread to disingenuously insinuate I hold certain views on immigration. PP already tried that by claiming I wanted people 'kicked out' of the country, and now you are attempting the same. It won't wash. My comments are there for all to see. And as I've made no mention of closing borders or kicking people out, you may safely assume I'm not advocating for that.

@5128gap - where I live in London, the independents are full of successful economic migrants from all over the world paying huge amount of tax and contributing to our economy. So that is a fact and the ISC has a ton of data on the makeup up private school pupils. It’s just a policy aimed at richer migrants, where I live at least and economically illiterate one on top of that. Is it really that much of a surprise that far right would despise poor migrant and far left rich migrant? Not to me.

Obviously policies shouldn’t be used to ‘unduly disadvantage’ anyone, are you seriously arguing for policies to ‘unduly disadvantage’ minorities to advantage the majority?!?

Unfortunately for Labour, this is real life and not an A level sociology class. Short of closing the borders or putting these ‘tiny groups’ in special camps, there is little to stop them from leaving when policies ‘unduly disadvantage’ them.

Please don't be ridiculous. Nowhere have I argued that a policy should be made to unduly disadvantage anyone. Nor have i said people can or should be prevented from leaving or indeed made to do so. So if you've nothing to say about what I've actually said, please don't quote me so I come back to the thread to answer to things you've made up. You can invent opinions in order to argue against them all by yourself without involving me.

It’s in the post I quoted. I found this view concerning and I’m pleased you have disowned it.