FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Labour VAT
Labour VAT
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"So there is a rumour circulating that as well as VAT on private school fees, Labour are also considering adding VAT to private health insurance and treatment. Seems that despite these taxpayers funding this out of post tax net income and in the process being a net contributor to the exchequer for services they could but won’t use and therefore saving taxpayers a fortune, Labour see it as fair game to impose double taxation." VAT, IHT, CGT .....you name it, we're gonna get clobbered. The nouveau poor. | |||
"So there is a rumour circulating that as well as VAT on private school fees, Labour are also considering adding VAT to private health insurance and treatment. Seems that despite these taxpayers funding this out of post tax net income and in the process being a net contributor to the exchequer for services they could but won’t use and therefore saving taxpayers a fortune, Labour see it as fair game to impose double taxation. " In that first line you state it's a rumour. That makes all your outrage in the second half a little wasted don't you think? | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"So there is a rumour circulating that as well as VAT on private school fees, Labour are also considering adding VAT to private health insurance and treatment. Seems that despite these taxpayers funding this out of post tax net income and in the process being a net contributor to the exchequer for services they could but won’t use and therefore saving taxpayers a fortune, Labour see it as fair game to impose double taxation. In that first line you state it's a rumour. That makes all your outrage in the second half a little wasted don't you think?" I'm the first one to bash Birldn for 'outrage', 'hypocrisy' etc. but I have to say here, if you genuinely see outrage, you need your eyes testing. | |||
| |||
"So there is a rumour circulating that as well as VAT on private school fees, Labour are also considering adding VAT to private health insurance and treatment. Seems that despite these taxpayers funding this out of post tax net income and in the process being a net contributor to the exchequer for services they could but won’t use and therefore saving taxpayers a fortune, Labour see it as fair game to impose double taxation. In that first line you state it's a rumour. That makes all your outrage in the second half a little wasted don't you think? I'm the first one to bash Birldn for 'outrage', 'hypocrisy' etc. but I have to say here, if you genuinely see outrage, you need your eyes testing. " Ok, I'll label it differently. Would you prefer "indignation", or "disproval"? What ever we pick to describe it, it does seem unnecessary to start a discussion about something that doesn't have any foundation in reality. Especially when there is plenty of things to complain about when looking at Labour's stated policies and positions. Support for genocide, continued privatisation of the NHS, transphobia, lack of democracy, etc. | |||
"We already pay income tax for all we earn. I don't think VAT should exist. If it does, it should be designed in a way to encourage good type of spending with zero VAT, like people choosing private schools, private insurance or improving their houses and discourage bad type of spending with high VAT on things like smoking which adds load on NHS. But if the government sees it as a nice way to generate more money, it's going to affect the country negatively." VAT is a poor taxation method, especially when aimed at everyday items (rather than true luxury items). It affects people with less money more, as it does not take into account relative wealth (as income and NI do). Therefore, poorer people end up paying much more VAT as a percentage of their income than richer people. | |||
"So there is a rumour circulating that as well as VAT on private school fees, Labour are also considering adding VAT to private health insurance and treatment. Seems that despite these taxpayers funding this out of post tax net income and in the process being a net contributor to the exchequer for services they could but won’t use and therefore saving taxpayers a fortune, Labour see it as fair game to impose double taxation. In that first line you state it's a rumour. That makes all your outrage in the second half a little wasted don't you think? I'm the first one to bash Birldn for 'outrage', 'hypocrisy' etc. but I have to say here, if you genuinely see outrage, you need your eyes testing. Ok, I'll label it differently. Would you prefer "indignation", or "disproval"? What ever we pick to describe it, it does seem unnecessary to start a discussion about something that doesn't have any foundation in reality. Especially when there is plenty of things to complain about when looking at Labour's stated policies and positions. Support for genocide, continued privatisation of the NHS, transphobia, lack of democracy, etc." Maybe you haven't been round much but plenty of threads are started off the back of rumours. It's just a discussion. If you're worried about any of the other things you mention, post a thread, I'm sure you'll get responses. | |||
"So there is a rumour circulating that as well as VAT on private school fees, Labour are also considering adding VAT to private health insurance and treatment. Seems that despite these taxpayers funding this out of post tax net income and in the process being a net contributor to the exchequer for services they could but won’t use and therefore saving taxpayers a fortune, Labour see it as fair game to impose double taxation. In that first line you state it's a rumour. That makes all your outrage in the second half a little wasted don't you think? I'm the first one to bash Birldn for 'outrage', 'hypocrisy' etc. but I have to say here, if you genuinely see outrage, you need your eyes testing. Ok, I'll label it differently. Would you prefer "indignation", or "disproval"? What ever we pick to describe it, it does seem unnecessary to start a discussion about something that doesn't have any foundation in reality. Especially when there is plenty of things to complain about when looking at Labour's stated policies and positions. Support for genocide, continued privatisation of the NHS, transphobia, lack of democracy, etc." You do know it isn’t compulsory to even read a thread let alone post in one. If I want to start a thread on absolutely anything I care to, I will. Don’t like it jog on. Quite simple. Personally I am outraged by VAT on school fees. Been discussed at length in various threads. Hearing that an almost identical approach might be taken with private healthcare is enough for me to share and voice my views. Feel free to ignore the topic and start threads of your own  | |||
"So there is a rumour circulating that as well as VAT on private school fees, Labour are also considering adding VAT to private health insurance and treatment. Seems that despite these taxpayers funding this out of post tax net income and in the process being a net contributor to the exchequer for services they could but won’t use and therefore saving taxpayers a fortune, Labour see it as fair game to impose double taxation. In that first line you state it's a rumour. That makes all your outrage in the second half a little wasted don't you think? I'm the first one to bash Birldn for 'outrage', 'hypocrisy' etc. but I have to say here, if you genuinely see outrage, you need your eyes testing. " Lolz not sure how to take that but I won’t bite…walks off humming man in the mirror  | |||
"It wouldn’t surprise me if this was on the table, it will make a lot of people happy that others who are paying and can afford to jump waiting lists get clobbered. They won’t be so happy when those same people put their children in the local public school and get on the NHS waiting lists. No taxes gained, expense going out! But hey they stuck it up them "I guess we should get used to it and many other tax rises. It seems they focus only on how they can make people pay more who don't want to go solely down the state route without thinking of the knock on effects. | |||
| |||
"So there is a rumour circulating that as well as VAT on private school fees, Labour are also considering adding VAT to private health insurance and treatment. Seems that despite these taxpayers funding this out of post tax net income and in the process being a net contributor to the exchequer for services they could but won’t use and therefore saving taxpayers a fortune, Labour see it as fair game to impose double taxation. In that first line you state it's a rumour. That makes all your outrage in the second half a little wasted don't you think? I'm the first one to bash Birldn for 'outrage', 'hypocrisy' etc. but I have to say here, if you genuinely see outrage, you need your eyes testing. Lolz not sure how to take that but I won’t bite…walks off humming man in the mirror "I'm not always a cunt | |||
"So there is a rumour circulating that as well as VAT on private school fees, Labour are also considering adding VAT to private health insurance and treatment. Seems that despite these taxpayers funding this out of post tax net income and in the process being a net contributor to the exchequer for services they could but won’t use and therefore saving taxpayers a fortune, Labour see it as fair game to impose double taxation. In that first line you state it's a rumour. That makes all your outrage in the second half a little wasted don't you think? I'm the first one to bash Birldn for 'outrage', 'hypocrisy' etc. but I have to say here, if you genuinely see outrage, you need your eyes testing. Lolz not sure how to take that but I won’t bite…walks off humming man in the mirror
I'm not always a cunt "You’re not. You have strong views which I respect. You act like an asshat which amuses me. You sometimes feel the need to comment when there actually is no need which mildly irritates me. But generally you’re alright. I’d buy you a beer, or baby cham if you prefer | |||
"So there is a rumour circulating that as well as VAT on private school fees, Labour are also considering adding VAT to private health insurance and treatment. Seems that despite these taxpayers funding this out of post tax net income and in the process being a net contributor to the exchequer for services they could but won’t use and therefore saving taxpayers a fortune, Labour see it as fair game to impose double taxation. In that first line you state it's a rumour. That makes all your outrage in the second half a little wasted don't you think? I'm the first one to bash Birldn for 'outrage', 'hypocrisy' etc. but I have to say here, if you genuinely see outrage, you need your eyes testing. Lolz not sure how to take that but I won’t bite…walks off humming man in the mirror
I'm not always a cunt
You’re not. You have strong views which I respect. You act like an asshat which amuses me. You sometimes feel the need to comment when there actually is no need which mildly irritates me. But generally you’re alright. I’d buy you a beer, or baby cham if you prefer "Only Dom Perignon for me thanks  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Private schools and private medical take people trained by the state. Once we sort that anomaly put them we can see if the premiums / fees shouldn't be taxed. But ATM it's not helping relieve pressure. The demand for medical and schools is the same. We need to work on the supply. Not reshape the demand to benefit those of us who can afford it. " State trained, is paid by us tax payers. If they go into the private sector the customer pays for them, and the same customer still pays for the training and wages of the NHS employees and teachers. I agree it needs sorting because it is taking the piss to add VAT onto that too. | |||
"Private schools and private medical take people trained by the state. Once we sort that anomaly put them we can see if the premiums / fees shouldn't be taxed. But ATM it's not helping relieve pressure. The demand for medical and schools is the same. We need to work on the supply. Not reshape the demand to benefit those of us who can afford it. State trained, is paid by us tax payers. If they go into the private sector the customer pays for them, and the same customer still pays for the training and wages of the NHS employees and teachers. I agree it needs sorting because it is taking the piss to add VAT onto that too. " They will still send their kids to private schools, can't see a mass exodus into the state system, don't think it will happen. It will piss people off and be the topic of the week come September but they'll still drop off little Tarquin and Philomena non the less. Mrs x | |||
"Private schools and private medical take people trained by the state. Once we sort that anomaly put them we can see if the premiums / fees shouldn't be taxed. But ATM it's not helping relieve pressure. The demand for medical and schools is the same. We need to work on the supply. Not reshape the demand to benefit those of us who can afford it. State trained, is paid by us tax payers. If they go into the private sector the customer pays for them, and the same customer still pays for the training and wages of the NHS employees and teachers. I agree it needs sorting because it is taking the piss to add VAT onto that too. They will still send their kids to private schools, can't see a mass exodus into the state system, don't think it will happen. It will piss people off and be the topic of the week come September but they'll still drop off little Tarquin and Philomena non the less. Mrs x" Why do you feel the way you do towards people who make a choice to privately educate their children? | |||
"We already pay income tax for all we earn. I don't think VAT should exist. If it does, it should be designed in a way to encourage good type of spending with zero VAT, like people choosing private schools, private insurance or improving their houses and discourage bad type of spending with high VAT on things like smoking which adds load on NHS. But if the government sees it as a nice way to generate more money, it's going to affect the country negatively. VAT is a poor taxation method, especially when aimed at everyday items (rather than true luxury items). It affects people with less money more, as it does not take into account relative wealth (as income and NI do). Therefore, poorer people end up paying much more VAT as a percentage of their income than richer people." Have to say I have never got this as food is VAT free and children's clothes. | |||
"So there is a rumour circulating that as well as VAT on private school fees, Labour are also considering adding VAT to private health insurance and treatment. Seems that despite these taxpayers funding this out of post tax net income and in the process being a net contributor to the exchequer for services they could but won’t use and therefore saving taxpayers a fortune, Labour see it as fair game to impose double taxation. In that first line you state it's a rumour. That makes all your outrage in the second half a little wasted don't you think? I'm the first one to bash Birldn for 'outrage', 'hypocrisy' etc. but I have to say here, if you genuinely see outrage, you need your eyes testing. Lolz not sure how to take that but I won’t bite…walks off humming man in the mirror
I'm not always a cunt
You’re not. You have strong views which I respect. You act like an asshat which amuses me. You sometimes feel the need to comment when there actually is no need which mildly irritates me. But generally you’re alright. I’d buy you a beer, or baby cham if you prefer
Only Dom Perignon for me thanks "I knew it! Champagne Socialist! | |||
"Private schools and private medical take people trained by the state. Once we sort that anomaly put them we can see if the premiums / fees shouldn't be taxed. But ATM it's not helping relieve pressure. The demand for medical and schools is the same. We need to work on the supply. Not reshape the demand to benefit those of us who can afford it. " Don't even go there on schools I pay tax but don't have children so don't benifit from schools at all | |||
"Private schools and private medical take people trained by the state. Once we sort that anomaly put them we can see if the premiums / fees shouldn't be taxed. But ATM it's not helping relieve pressure. The demand for medical and schools is the same. We need to work on the supply. Not reshape the demand to benefit those of us who can afford it. State trained, is paid by us tax payers. If they go into the private sector the customer pays for them, and the same customer still pays for the training and wages of the NHS employees and teachers. I agree it needs sorting because it is taking the piss to add VAT onto that too. They will still send their kids to private schools, can't see a mass exodus into the state system, don't think it will happen. It will piss people off and be the topic of the week come September but they'll still drop off little Tarquin and Philomena non the less. Mrs x Why do you feel the way you do towards people who make a choice to privately educate their children? " Why do you think we didn't send our children to private school? Our youngest was a border at Mount St Mary's in Spinkhill, Derbyshire. He went there as it was the best option for his Rugby. So do know a little about the private system and why parents send their kids there and it's not all about giving them the best start in life. A lot of the time it's a status thing, 'look at us sending our kids to private school'. These kind of parents will still send their offsprings there because they think it reflects good on them. Mrs x | |||
"Private schools and private medical take people trained by the state. Once we sort that anomaly put them we can see if the premiums / fees shouldn't be taxed. But ATM it's not helping relieve pressure. The demand for medical and schools is the same. We need to work on the supply. Not reshape the demand to benefit those of us who can afford it. " 1. You cannot practice private medicine in the UK unless you also work for the NHS (not sure what the minimum requirement is). 2. c.600,000 kids in private school saving tax payers c.£4.8bn a year. | |||
"So there is a rumour circulating that as well as VAT on private school fees, Labour are also considering adding VAT to private health insurance and treatment. Seems that despite these taxpayers funding this out of post tax net income and in the process being a net contributor to the exchequer for services they could but won’t use and therefore saving taxpayers a fortune, Labour see it as fair game to impose double taxation. In that first line you state it's a rumour. That makes all your outrage in the second half a little wasted don't you think? I'm the first one to bash Birldn for 'outrage', 'hypocrisy' etc. but I have to say here, if you genuinely see outrage, you need your eyes testing. Lolz not sure how to take that but I won’t bite…walks off humming man in the mirror
I'm not always a cunt
You’re not. You have strong views which I respect. You act like an asshat which amuses me. You sometimes feel the need to comment when there actually is no need which mildly irritates me. But generally you’re alright. I’d buy you a beer, or baby cham if you prefer
Only Dom Perignon for me thanks
I knew it! Champagne Socialist! "Enough of the socialist. Give me my benefits and I'm happy. I'm not paying into it though | |||
"Private schools and private medical take people trained by the state. Once we sort that anomaly put them we can see if the premiums / fees shouldn't be taxed. But ATM it's not helping relieve pressure. The demand for medical and schools is the same. We need to work on the supply. Not reshape the demand to benefit those of us who can afford it. State trained, is paid by us tax payers. If they go into the private sector the customer pays for them, and the same customer still pays for the training and wages of the NHS employees and teachers. I agree it needs sorting because it is taking the piss to add VAT onto that too. They will still send their kids to private schools, can't see a mass exodus into the state system, don't think it will happen. It will piss people off and be the topic of the week come September but they'll still drop off little Tarquin and Philomena non the less. Mrs x Why do you feel the way you do towards people who make a choice to privately educate their children? Why do you think we didn't send our children to private school? Our youngest was a border at Mount St Mary's in Spinkhill, Derbyshire. He went there as it was the best option for his Rugby. So do know a little about the private system and why parents send their kids there and it's not all about giving them the best start in life. A lot of the time it's a status thing, 'look at us sending our kids to private school'. These kind of parents will still send their offsprings there because they think it reflects good on them. Mrs x" Without doubt you will have parents doing things for bragging rights. But I think there are more parents that send their children to private school as a priority above and beyond their holidays and flash cars. For those parents that have given up on the nicer things, adding 20% to their outgoings at this time is just dragging them down, because they will try and pay it, especially if they are already committed to the school. | |||
| |||
"Private schools and private medical take people trained by the state. Once we sort that anomaly put them we can see if the premiums / fees shouldn't be taxed. But ATM it's not helping relieve pressure. The demand for medical and schools is the same. We need to work on the supply. Not reshape the demand to benefit those of us who can afford it. State trained, is paid by us tax payers. If they go into the private sector the customer pays for them, and the same customer still pays for the training and wages of the NHS employees and teachers. I agree it needs sorting because it is taking the piss to add VAT onto that too. They will still send their kids to private schools, can't see a mass exodus into the state system, don't think it will happen. It will piss people off and be the topic of the week come September but they'll still drop off little Tarquin and Philomena non the less. Mrs x Why do you feel the way you do towards people who make a choice to privately educate their children? Why do you think we didn't send our children to private school? Our youngest was a border at Mount St Mary's in Spinkhill, Derbyshire. He went there as it was the best option for his Rugby. So do know a little about the private system and why parents send their kids there and it's not all about giving them the best start in life. A lot of the time it's a status thing, 'look at us sending our kids to private school'. These kind of parents will still send their offsprings there because they think it reflects good on them. Mrs x Without doubt you will have parents doing things for bragging rights. But I think there are more parents that send their children to private school as a priority above and beyond their holidays and flash cars. For those parents that have given up on the nicer things, adding 20% to their outgoings at this time is just dragging them down, because they will try and pay it, especially if they are already committed to the school. " I do sympathise with these parents but, and this was when my son went to school, which was quite a while ago, if you could afford 37k a year, it wasn't because you were foregoing flash cars and holidays. I'm not telling anyone how to spend their money but I don't think it will have a massive impact in the number of kids going to private schools. I must admit this is just based upon our own experience but school fees was never an 'easy' chat, everyone moaned about them but everyone came back each term. Mrs x | |||
"Private schools and private medical take people trained by the state. Once we sort that anomaly put them we can see if the premiums / fees shouldn't be taxed. But ATM it's not helping relieve pressure. The demand for medical and schools is the same. We need to work on the supply. Not reshape the demand to benefit those of us who can afford it. State trained, is paid by us tax payers. If they go into the private sector the customer pays for them, and the same customer still pays for the training and wages of the NHS employees and teachers. I agree it needs sorting because it is taking the piss to add VAT onto that too. They will still send their kids to private schools, can't see a mass exodus into the state system, don't think it will happen. It will piss people off and be the topic of the week come September but they'll still drop off little Tarquin and Philomena non the less. Mrs x" Sorry Norty but you have not been paying attention on this point. The rich will not be affected. They will begrudgingly absorb the 20% increase. It is middle income families who have found a way to finance school fees by remortgaging, loans, working two jobs, borrowing from grandparents etc who will be impacted. The 20% increase could be the straw that breaks the camels back. It is the parents whose kids are on scholarships reducing their fees. It is the low income families with talented kids who are funded via means tested bursaries. If Labour say “we don’t believe you are charities so we are removing the tax breaks you have as charities” then the schools will stop acting charitably. No more scholarships. No more bursaries. Private schools will them become even more elite as only the really wealthy will be able to afford. It is a purely punitive populist policy. If we want to be more egalitarian then why not insist on the schools doing more charitable activity with a minimum number of bursaries? What will happen will be a gradual reduction in the number of kids at private school. It won’t happen over night as parents want to minimise disruption, but what will start to happen is those middle income families will use their wealth to start buying houses in the catchment areas of the best performing state schools. Pushing up prices and making them middle class enclaves pricing out poorer people. They will also use their wealth to pay for extra 1-2-1 tuition giving their kids advantage over poor kids. This is the wrong policy. | |||
"Private schools and private medical take people trained by the state. Once we sort that anomaly put them we can see if the premiums / fees shouldn't be taxed. But ATM it's not helping relieve pressure. The demand for medical and schools is the same. We need to work on the supply. Not reshape the demand to benefit those of us who can afford it. State trained, is paid by us tax payers. If they go into the private sector the customer pays for them, and the same customer still pays for the training and wages of the NHS employees and teachers. I agree it needs sorting because it is taking the piss to add VAT onto that too. They will still send their kids to private schools, can't see a mass exodus into the state system, don't think it will happen. It will piss people off and be the topic of the week come September but they'll still drop off little Tarquin and Philomena non the less. Mrs x Why do you feel the way you do towards people who make a choice to privately educate their children? Why do you think we didn't send our children to private school? Our youngest was a border at Mount St Mary's in Spinkhill, Derbyshire. He went there as it was the best option for his Rugby. So do know a little about the private system and why parents send their kids there and it's not all about giving them the best start in life. A lot of the time it's a status thing, 'look at us sending our kids to private school'. These kind of parents will still send their offsprings there because they think it reflects good on them. Mrs x Without doubt you will have parents doing things for bragging rights. But I think there are more parents that send their children to private school as a priority above and beyond their holidays and flash cars. For those parents that have given up on the nicer things, adding 20% to their outgoings at this time is just dragging them down, because they will try and pay it, especially if they are already committed to the school. I do sympathise with these parents but, and this was when my son went to school, which was quite a while ago, if you could afford 37k a year, it wasn't because you were foregoing flash cars and holidays. I'm not telling anyone how to spend their money but I don't think it will have a massive impact in the number of kids going to private schools. I must admit this is just based upon our own experience but school fees was never an 'easy' chat, everyone moaned about them but everyone came back each term. Mrs x" And you are conflating day schools/students and borders. Avg day school fees are still a whopping £15k but not over £40k. 99% of pvt sch are not Eton, Harrow, or Winchester! | |||
"Private schools and private medical take people trained by the state. Once we sort that anomaly put them we can see if the premiums / fees shouldn't be taxed. But ATM it's not helping relieve pressure. The demand for medical and schools is the same. We need to work on the supply. Not reshape the demand to benefit those of us who can afford it. State trained, is paid by us tax payers. If they go into the private sector the customer pays for them, and the same customer still pays for the training and wages of the NHS employees and teachers. I agree it needs sorting because it is taking the piss to add VAT onto that too. They will still send their kids to private schools, can't see a mass exodus into the state system, don't think it will happen. It will piss people off and be the topic of the week come September but they'll still drop off little Tarquin and Philomena non the less. Mrs x Why do you feel the way you do towards people who make a choice to privately educate their children? Why do you think we didn't send our children to private school? Our youngest was a border at Mount St Mary's in Spinkhill, Derbyshire. He went there as it was the best option for his Rugby. So do know a little about the private system and why parents send their kids there and it's not all about giving them the best start in life. A lot of the time it's a status thing, 'look at us sending our kids to private school'. These kind of parents will still send their offsprings there because they think it reflects good on them. Mrs x Without doubt you will have parents doing things for bragging rights. But I think there are more parents that send their children to private school as a priority above and beyond their holidays and flash cars. For those parents that have given up on the nicer things, adding 20% to their outgoings at this time is just dragging them down, because they will try and pay it, especially if they are already committed to the school. I do sympathise with these parents but, and this was when my son went to school, which was quite a while ago, if you could afford 37k a year, it wasn't because you were foregoing flash cars and holidays. I'm not telling anyone how to spend their money but I don't think it will have a massive impact in the number of kids going to private schools. I must admit this is just based upon our own experience but school fees was never an 'easy' chat, everyone moaned about them but everyone came back each term. Mrs x And you are conflating day schools/students and borders. Avg day school fees are still a whopping £15k but not over £40k. 99% of pvt sch are not Eton, Harrow, or Winchester!" Sorry day students are obviously still ridiculously expensive but not as much as borders. I still think they will return to their schools in September. And I know that not every school is not Eton, Harrow or Winchester but the fees are similar no matter where you go. At the time I think there was only about 2-3k difference for Eton to where we sent our son. I understand paying more is shit for anyone. But it's still a choice which the vast majority in this country don't have. Mrs x | |||
"Private schools and private medical take people trained by the state. Once we sort that anomaly put them we can see if the premiums / fees shouldn't be taxed. But ATM it's not helping relieve pressure. The demand for medical and schools is the same. We need to work on the supply. Not reshape the demand to benefit those of us who can afford it. State trained, is paid by us tax payers. If they go into the private sector the customer pays for them, and the same customer still pays for the training and wages of the NHS employees and teachers. I agree it needs sorting because it is taking the piss to add VAT onto that too. They will still send their kids to private schools, can't see a mass exodus into the state system, don't think it will happen. It will piss people off and be the topic of the week come September but they'll still drop off little Tarquin and Philomena non the less. Mrs x Why do you feel the way you do towards people who make a choice to privately educate their children? Why do you think we didn't send our children to private school? Our youngest was a border at Mount St Mary's in Spinkhill, Derbyshire. He went there as it was the best option for his Rugby. So do know a little about the private system and why parents send their kids there and it's not all about giving them the best start in life. A lot of the time it's a status thing, 'look at us sending our kids to private school'. These kind of parents will still send their offsprings there because they think it reflects good on them. Mrs x Without doubt you will have parents doing things for bragging rights. But I think there are more parents that send their children to private school as a priority above and beyond their holidays and flash cars. For those parents that have given up on the nicer things, adding 20% to their outgoings at this time is just dragging them down, because they will try and pay it, especially if they are already committed to the school. I do sympathise with these parents but, and this was when my son went to school, which was quite a while ago, if you could afford 37k a year, it wasn't because you were foregoing flash cars and holidays. I'm not telling anyone how to spend their money but I don't think it will have a massive impact in the number of kids going to private schools. I must admit this is just based upon our own experience but school fees was never an 'easy' chat, everyone moaned about them but everyone came back each term. Mrs x And you are conflating day schools/students and borders. Avg day school fees are still a whopping £15k but not over £40k. 99% of pvt sch are not Eton, Harrow, or Winchester! Sorry day students are obviously still ridiculously expensive but not as much as borders. I still think they will return to their schools in September. And I know that not every school is not Eton, Harrow or Winchester but the fees are similar no matter where you go. At the time I think there was only about 2-3k difference for Eton to where we sent our son. I understand paying more is shit for anyone. But it's still a choice which the vast majority in this country don't have. Mrs x" This September and possibly next September won’t probably see a big fall as parents won’t want to disrupt GCSE or A Level. But I think we will see a gradual reduction in number of pupils as middle incomers change tack (see my earlier post) and bursary kids are forced out. | |||
"Private schools and private medical take people trained by the state. Once we sort that anomaly put them we can see if the premiums / fees shouldn't be taxed. But ATM it's not helping relieve pressure. The demand for medical and schools is the same. We need to work on the supply. Not reshape the demand to benefit those of us who can afford it. State trained, is paid by us tax payers. If they go into the private sector the customer pays for them, and the same customer still pays for the training and wages of the NHS employees and teachers. I agree it needs sorting because it is taking the piss to add VAT onto that too. They will still send their kids to private schools, can't see a mass exodus into the state system, don't think it will happen. It will piss people off and be the topic of the week come September but they'll still drop off little Tarquin and Philomena non the less. Mrs x Why do you feel the way you do towards people who make a choice to privately educate their children? Why do you think we didn't send our children to private school? Our youngest was a border at Mount St Mary's in Spinkhill, Derbyshire. He went there as it was the best option for his Rugby. So do know a little about the private system and why parents send their kids there and it's not all about giving them the best start in life. A lot of the time it's a status thing, 'look at us sending our kids to private school'. These kind of parents will still send their offsprings there because they think it reflects good on them. Mrs x Without doubt you will have parents doing things for bragging rights. But I think there are more parents that send their children to private school as a priority above and beyond their holidays and flash cars. For those parents that have given up on the nicer things, adding 20% to their outgoings at this time is just dragging them down, because they will try and pay it, especially if they are already committed to the school. I do sympathise with these parents but, and this was when my son went to school, which was quite a while ago, if you could afford 37k a year, it wasn't because you were foregoing flash cars and holidays. I'm not telling anyone how to spend their money but I don't think it will have a massive impact in the number of kids going to private schools. I must admit this is just based upon our own experience but school fees was never an 'easy' chat, everyone moaned about them but everyone came back each term. Mrs x And you are conflating day schools/students and borders. Avg day school fees are still a whopping £15k but not over £40k. 99% of pvt sch are not Eton, Harrow, or Winchester! Sorry day students are obviously still ridiculously expensive but not as much as borders. I still think they will return to their schools in September. And I know that not every school is not Eton, Harrow or Winchester but the fees are similar no matter where you go. At the time I think there was only about 2-3k difference for Eton to where we sent our son. I understand paying more is shit for anyone. But it's still a choice which the vast majority in this country don't have. Mrs x This September and possibly next September won’t probably see a big fall as parents won’t want to disrupt GCSE or A Level. But I think we will see a gradual reduction in number of pupils as middle incomers change tack (see my earlier post) and bursary kids are forced out." Why will bursary kids be pushed out? Mrs x | |||
| |||
"Private schools and private medical take people trained by the state. Once we sort that anomaly put them we can see if the premiums / fees shouldn't be taxed. But ATM it's not helping relieve pressure. The demand for medical and schools is the same. We need to work on the supply. Not reshape the demand to benefit those of us who can afford it. State trained, is paid by us tax payers. If they go into the private sector the customer pays for them, and the same customer still pays for the training and wages of the NHS employees and teachers. I agree it needs sorting because it is taking the piss to add VAT onto that too. They will still send their kids to private schools, can't see a mass exodus into the state system, don't think it will happen. It will piss people off and be the topic of the week come September but they'll still drop off little Tarquin and Philomena non the less. Mrs x Why do you feel the way you do towards people who make a choice to privately educate their children? Why do you think we didn't send our children to private school? Our youngest was a border at Mount St Mary's in Spinkhill, Derbyshire. He went there as it was the best option for his Rugby. So do know a little about the private system and why parents send their kids there and it's not all about giving them the best start in life. A lot of the time it's a status thing, 'look at us sending our kids to private school'. These kind of parents will still send their offsprings there because they think it reflects good on them. Mrs x Without doubt you will have parents doing things for bragging rights. But I think there are more parents that send their children to private school as a priority above and beyond their holidays and flash cars. For those parents that have given up on the nicer things, adding 20% to their outgoings at this time is just dragging them down, because they will try and pay it, especially if they are already committed to the school. I do sympathise with these parents but, and this was when my son went to school, which was quite a while ago, if you could afford 37k a year, it wasn't because you were foregoing flash cars and holidays. I'm not telling anyone how to spend their money but I don't think it will have a massive impact in the number of kids going to private schools. I must admit this is just based upon our own experience but school fees was never an 'easy' chat, everyone moaned about them but everyone came back each term. Mrs x And you are conflating day schools/students and borders. Avg day school fees are still a whopping £15k but not over £40k. 99% of pvt sch are not Eton, Harrow, or Winchester! Sorry day students are obviously still ridiculously expensive but not as much as borders. I still think they will return to their schools in September. And I know that not every school is not Eton, Harrow or Winchester but the fees are similar no matter where you go. At the time I think there was only about 2-3k difference for Eton to where we sent our son. I understand paying more is shit for anyone. But it's still a choice which the vast majority in this country don't have. Mrs x This September and possibly next September won’t probably see a big fall as parents won’t want to disrupt GCSE or A Level. But I think we will see a gradual reduction in number of pupils as middle incomers change tack (see my earlier post) and bursary kids are forced out.Why will bursary kids be pushed out? Mrs x" Because Labour are saying these schools are not charities and are therefore not entitled to have the tax breaks that charities receive. So if they are not charities why would they continue to be charitable. Wave bye bye to bursaries! | |||
"Private schools and private medical take people trained by the state. Once we sort that anomaly put them we can see if the premiums / fees shouldn't be taxed. But ATM it's not helping relieve pressure. The demand for medical and schools is the same. We need to work on the supply. Not reshape the demand to benefit those of us who can afford it. State trained, is paid by us tax payers. If they go into the private sector the customer pays for them, and the same customer still pays for the training and wages of the NHS employees and teachers. I agree it needs sorting because it is taking the piss to add VAT onto that too. They will still send their kids to private schools, can't see a mass exodus into the state system, don't think it will happen. It will piss people off and be the topic of the week come September but they'll still drop off little Tarquin and Philomena non the less. Mrs x Why do you feel the way you do towards people who make a choice to privately educate their children? Why do you think we didn't send our children to private school? Our youngest was a border at Mount St Mary's in Spinkhill, Derbyshire. He went there as it was the best option for his Rugby. So do know a little about the private system and why parents send their kids there and it's not all about giving them the best start in life. A lot of the time it's a status thing, 'look at us sending our kids to private school'. These kind of parents will still send their offsprings there because they think it reflects good on them. Mrs x Without doubt you will have parents doing things for bragging rights. But I think there are more parents that send their children to private school as a priority above and beyond their holidays and flash cars. For those parents that have given up on the nicer things, adding 20% to their outgoings at this time is just dragging them down, because they will try and pay it, especially if they are already committed to the school. I do sympathise with these parents but, and this was when my son went to school, which was quite a while ago, if you could afford 37k a year, it wasn't because you were foregoing flash cars and holidays. I'm not telling anyone how to spend their money but I don't think it will have a massive impact in the number of kids going to private schools. I must admit this is just based upon our own experience but school fees was never an 'easy' chat, everyone moaned about them but everyone came back each term. Mrs x And you are conflating day schools/students and borders. Avg day school fees are still a whopping £15k but not over £40k. 99% of pvt sch are not Eton, Harrow, or Winchester! Sorry day students are obviously still ridiculously expensive but not as much as borders. I still think they will return to their schools in September. And I know that not every school is not Eton, Harrow or Winchester but the fees are similar no matter where you go. At the time I think there was only about 2-3k difference for Eton to where we sent our son. I understand paying more is shit for anyone. But it's still a choice which the vast majority in this country don't have. Mrs x This September and possibly next September won’t probably see a big fall as parents won’t want to disrupt GCSE or A Level. But I think we will see a gradual reduction in number of pupils as middle incomers change tack (see my earlier post) and bursary kids are forced out.Why will bursary kids be pushed out? Mrs x Because Labour are saying these schools are not charities and are therefore not entitled to have the tax breaks that charities receive. So if they are not charities why would they continue to be charitable. Wave bye bye to bursaries!" And that's been decided already? Mrs x | |||
| |||
"Private schools and private medical take people trained by the state. Once we sort that anomaly put them we can see if the premiums / fees shouldn't be taxed. But ATM it's not helping relieve pressure. The demand for medical and schools is the same. We need to work on the supply. Not reshape the demand to benefit those of us who can afford it. State trained, is paid by us tax payers. If they go into the private sector the customer pays for them, and the same customer still pays for the training and wages of the NHS employees and teachers. I agree it needs sorting because it is taking the piss to add VAT onto that too. They will still send their kids to private schools, can't see a mass exodus into the state system, don't think it will happen. It will piss people off and be the topic of the week come September but they'll still drop off little Tarquin and Philomena non the less. Mrs x Why do you feel the way you do towards people who make a choice to privately educate their children? Why do you think we didn't send our children to private school? Our youngest was a border at Mount St Mary's in Spinkhill, Derbyshire. He went there as it was the best option for his Rugby. So do know a little about the private system and why parents send their kids there and it's not all about giving them the best start in life. A lot of the time it's a status thing, 'look at us sending our kids to private school'. These kind of parents will still send their offsprings there because they think it reflects good on them. Mrs x Without doubt you will have parents doing things for bragging rights. But I think there are more parents that send their children to private school as a priority above and beyond their holidays and flash cars. For those parents that have given up on the nicer things, adding 20% to their outgoings at this time is just dragging them down, because they will try and pay it, especially if they are already committed to the school. I do sympathise with these parents but, and this was when my son went to school, which was quite a while ago, if you could afford 37k a year, it wasn't because you were foregoing flash cars and holidays. I'm not telling anyone how to spend their money but I don't think it will have a massive impact in the number of kids going to private schools. I must admit this is just based upon our own experience but school fees was never an 'easy' chat, everyone moaned about them but everyone came back each term. Mrs x And you are conflating day schools/students and borders. Avg day school fees are still a whopping £15k but not over £40k. 99% of pvt sch are not Eton, Harrow, or Winchester! Sorry day students are obviously still ridiculously expensive but not as much as borders. I still think they will return to their schools in September. And I know that not every school is not Eton, Harrow or Winchester but the fees are similar no matter where you go. At the time I think there was only about 2-3k difference for Eton to where we sent our son. I understand paying more is shit for anyone. But it's still a choice which the vast majority in this country don't have. Mrs x This September and possibly next September won’t probably see a big fall as parents won’t want to disrupt GCSE or A Level. But I think we will see a gradual reduction in number of pupils as middle incomers change tack (see my earlier post) and bursary kids are forced out.Why will bursary kids be pushed out? Mrs x Because Labour are saying these schools are not charities and are therefore not entitled to have the tax breaks that charities receive. So if they are not charities why would they continue to be charitable. Wave bye bye to bursaries!And that's been decided already? Mrs x" Labour have not pledged to remove charitable status from private schools, so where have you got this from. Nothing quoted about the loss of bursaries and scholarships. It's also not a given that all schools will pass this on to those paying fees. Removing the exemption does not necessarily mean fees would go up by the standard 20% VAT rate. The IFS suggests that what it calls private schools' effective VAT rate would be closer to 15%, because for the first time they will be able to deduct the VAT they pay when buying goods and services. All private schools are different, and some may decide to put up their fees more than others. It is likely that private school attendance would fall as a result of the change, but it is difficult to know by how much. The average cost of private school fees has risen by 20% in real terms since 2010, and by 55% since 2003, without VAT, the IFS says. However, the proportion of children being privately-educated over the period has not fallen. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c033dp0z1edo So like I said before I don't think it will have an impact on the numbers that's being put out. In fact the aiFS said it could have an impact on numbers as low as 3% upto 7%. Mrs x | |||
"Therefore, poorer people end up paying much more VAT as a percentage of their income than richer people." Poor people end up paying more for everything as a percentage of their income. Their income is smaller, so the percentages will be smaller, so they have to use more percentages to get the same things as everyone else. This is a foolish argument. | |||
"You don't need to be a qualified teacher to teach within the private system." No, you just have to be good at it. And if you're not good at it, you'll be sacked. Unlike teachers in the state system. | |||
"Private schools and private medical take people trained by the state. Once we sort that anomaly put them we can see if the premiums / fees shouldn't be taxed. But ATM it's not helping relieve pressure. The demand for medical and schools is the same. We need to work on the supply. Not reshape the demand to benefit those of us who can afford it. State trained, is paid by us tax payers. If they go into the private sector the customer pays for them, and the same customer still pays for the training and wages of the NHS employees and teachers. I agree it needs sorting because it is taking the piss to add VAT onto that too. They will still send their kids to private schools, can't see a mass exodus into the state system, don't think it will happen. It will piss people off and be the topic of the week come September but they'll still drop off little Tarquin and Philomena non the less. Mrs x Why do you feel the way you do towards people who make a choice to privately educate their children? Why do you think we didn't send our children to private school? Our youngest was a border at Mount St Mary's in Spinkhill, Derbyshire. He went there as it was the best option for his Rugby. So do know a little about the private system and why parents send their kids there and it's not all about giving them the best start in life. A lot of the time it's a status thing, 'look at us sending our kids to private school'. These kind of parents will still send their offsprings there because they think it reflects good on them. Mrs x Without doubt you will have parents doing things for bragging rights. But I think there are more parents that send their children to private school as a priority above and beyond their holidays and flash cars. For those parents that have given up on the nicer things, adding 20% to their outgoings at this time is just dragging them down, because they will try and pay it, especially if they are already committed to the school. I do sympathise with these parents but, and this was when my son went to school, which was quite a while ago, if you could afford 37k a year, it wasn't because you were foregoing flash cars and holidays. I'm not telling anyone how to spend their money but I don't think it will have a massive impact in the number of kids going to private schools. I must admit this is just based upon our own experience but school fees was never an 'easy' chat, everyone moaned about them but everyone came back each term. Mrs x And you are conflating day schools/students and borders. Avg day school fees are still a whopping £15k but not over £40k. 99% of pvt sch are not Eton, Harrow, or Winchester! Sorry day students are obviously still ridiculously expensive but not as much as borders. I still think they will return to their schools in September. And I know that not every school is not Eton, Harrow or Winchester but the fees are similar no matter where you go. At the time I think there was only about 2-3k difference for Eton to where we sent our son. I understand paying more is shit for anyone. But it's still a choice which the vast majority in this country don't have. Mrs x This September and possibly next September won’t probably see a big fall as parents won’t want to disrupt GCSE or A Level. But I think we will see a gradual reduction in number of pupils as middle incomers change tack (see my earlier post) and bursary kids are forced out.Why will bursary kids be pushed out? Mrs x Because Labour are saying these schools are not charities and are therefore not entitled to have the tax breaks that charities receive. So if they are not charities why would they continue to be charitable. Wave bye bye to bursaries!And that's been decided already? Mrs x Labour have not pledged to remove charitable status from private schools, so where have you got this from. Nothing quoted about the loss of bursaries and scholarships. It's also not a given that all schools will pass this on to those paying fees. Removing the exemption does not necessarily mean fees would go up by the standard 20% VAT rate. The IFS suggests that what it calls private schools' effective VAT rate would be closer to 15%, because for the first time they will be able to deduct the VAT they pay when buying goods and services. All private schools are different, and some may decide to put up their fees more than others. It is likely that private school attendance would fall as a result of the change, but it is difficult to know by how much. The average cost of private school fees has risen by 20% in real terms since 2010, and by 55% since 2003, without VAT, the IFS says. However, the proportion of children being privately-educated over the period has not fallen. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c033dp0z1edo So like I said before I don't think it will have an impact on the numbers that's being put out. In fact the aiFS said it could have an impact on numbers as low as 3% upto 7%. Mrs x" Labour are being tricksy. They may not remove charity status but they are removing the financial benefits of being a charity. So they will effectively no longer be charities so why should they continue to act charitably. Of course the schools have not announced that, it would be awful PR, but it will happen over time. | |||
| |||
"Labour have not pledged to remove charitable status from private schools.." Nobody's said they have. The point being made above is that schools currently organise themselves as charities to get the useful tax breaks. If those tax breaks get removed, the schools will reorganise themselves as companies, to get access to different tax breaks (like reclaiming VAT, which they can't do as charities). If you make charity status less attractive, there will be fewer charities. | |||
"Private schools and private medical take people trained by the state. Once we sort that anomaly put them we can see if the premiums / fees shouldn't be taxed. But ATM it's not helping relieve pressure. The demand for medical and schools is the same. We need to work on the supply. Not reshape the demand to benefit those of us who can afford it. State trained, is paid by us tax payers. If they go into the private sector the customer pays for them, and the same customer still pays for the training and wages of the NHS employees and teachers. I agree it needs sorting because it is taking the piss to add VAT onto that too. They will still send their kids to private schools, can't see a mass exodus into the state system, don't think it will happen. It will piss people off and be the topic of the week come September but they'll still drop off little Tarquin and Philomena non the less. Mrs x Why do you feel the way you do towards people who make a choice to privately educate their children? Why do you think we didn't send our children to private school? Our youngest was a border at Mount St Mary's in Spinkhill, Derbyshire. He went there as it was the best option for his Rugby. So do know a little about the private system and why parents send their kids there and it's not all about giving them the best start in life. A lot of the time it's a status thing, 'look at us sending our kids to private school'. These kind of parents will still send their offsprings there because they think it reflects good on them. Mrs x Without doubt you will have parents doing things for bragging rights. But I think there are more parents that send their children to private school as a priority above and beyond their holidays and flash cars. For those parents that have given up on the nicer things, adding 20% to their outgoings at this time is just dragging them down, because they will try and pay it, especially if they are already committed to the school. I do sympathise with these parents but, and this was when my son went to school, which was quite a while ago, if you could afford 37k a year, it wasn't because you were foregoing flash cars and holidays. I'm not telling anyone how to spend their money but I don't think it will have a massive impact in the number of kids going to private schools. I must admit this is just based upon our own experience but school fees was never an 'easy' chat, everyone moaned about them but everyone came back each term. Mrs x And you are conflating day schools/students and borders. Avg day school fees are still a whopping £15k but not over £40k. 99% of pvt sch are not Eton, Harrow, or Winchester! Sorry day students are obviously still ridiculously expensive but not as much as borders. I still think they will return to their schools in September. And I know that not every school is not Eton, Harrow or Winchester but the fees are similar no matter where you go. At the time I think there was only about 2-3k difference for Eton to where we sent our son. I understand paying more is shit for anyone. But it's still a choice which the vast majority in this country don't have. Mrs x This September and possibly next September won’t probably see a big fall as parents won’t want to disrupt GCSE or A Level. But I think we will see a gradual reduction in number of pupils as middle incomers change tack (see my earlier post) and bursary kids are forced out.Why will bursary kids be pushed out? Mrs x Because Labour are saying these schools are not charities and are therefore not entitled to have the tax breaks that charities receive. So if they are not charities why would they continue to be charitable. Wave bye bye to bursaries!And that's been decided already? Mrs x Labour have not pledged to remove charitable status from private schools, so where have you got this from. Nothing quoted about the loss of bursaries and scholarships. It's also not a given that all schools will pass this on to those paying fees. Removing the exemption does not necessarily mean fees would go up by the standard 20% VAT rate. The IFS suggests that what it calls private schools' effective VAT rate would be closer to 15%, because for the first time they will be able to deduct the VAT they pay when buying goods and services. All private schools are different, and some may decide to put up their fees more than others. It is likely that private school attendance would fall as a result of the change, but it is difficult to know by how much. The average cost of private school fees has risen by 20% in real terms since 2010, and by 55% since 2003, without VAT, the IFS says. However, the proportion of children being privately-educated over the period has not fallen. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c033dp0z1edo So like I said before I don't think it will have an impact on the numbers that's being put out. In fact the aiFS said it could have an impact on numbers as low as 3% upto 7%. Mrs x Labour are being tricksy. They may not remove charity status but they are removing the financial benefits of being a charity. So they will effectively no longer be charities so why should they continue to act charitably. Of course the schools have not announced that, it would be awful PR, but it will happen over time." They have not removed charitable status, you are taking 2+2 and coming up with 5. You think they will do this but you don't know, this is not like you, you normally back up you comments but not this time, ots just your feeling I think I have backed up what I've said with the thoughts of the IFS. So as it stands bursaries and scholarships will continue as will these schools charitable status. Mrscx | |||
"Labour have not pledged to remove charitable status from private schools.. Nobody's said they have. The point being made above is that schools currently organise themselves as charities to get the useful tax breaks. If those tax breaks get removed, the schools will reorganise themselves as companies, to get access to different tax breaks (like reclaiming VAT, which they can't do as charities). If you make charity status less attractive, there will be fewer charities." This is not the case, private schools are companies already. From The Standard "What myth-makers had been missing is this — private schools are businesses. If they lose custom, they will do what they have done in the past, which is to lower their fees until the books are balanced, often by cutting costs elsewhere. Teacher to pupil ratios can be reduced, and buildings sold off. (If things get disastrous, private schools can ditch the fees altogether and apply to become state-funded academies, which would be good for the state too). With the extra money it will save, we can afford to absorb pupils fleeing the system: on average, private school fees are two and a half times the cost to the state of a place at state school. There is also space in state schools at present. The birth rate is dropping fast, meaning the overall fall in pupil numbers would outstrip any private school departees. We need to fill those empty classrooms. As for the idea that pushing private schools into raising fees would harm the middle classes — another argument we hear a great deal of — only the very top earners can afford school fees as they are (they now average £15,000 a year). If Labour’s initiatives will hurt any group, it’s the bottom tier of the top five per cent of earners. These are not your typical strivers." Mrs x | |||
"The point being made above is that schools currently organise themselves as charities to get the useful tax breaks. If those tax breaks get removed, the schools will reorganise themselves as companies, to get access to different tax breaks (like reclaiming VAT, which they can't do as charities). If you make charity status less attractive, there will be fewer charities." "This is not the case, private schools are companies already. From The Standard "What myth-makers had been missing is this — private schools are businesses... " There's a big difference between 'a business' and 'a company'. 'Business' means that you are operating with the aim of earning a profit. 'Company' means that you are registered with Companies House, have a registered 'Articles of Association' which limit your activities, and you've taken on the legal benefits and restrictions of a limited company. At the moment most non-state schools are registered with the Charities Commission, and are technically charities. Yes, they are businesses, because they strive to make a profit, but legally they are charities. That gives them the ability to provide services without charging VAT. It makes the fees cheaper, so more people can afford it. If that advantage of being a charity is taken away, they will all switch to registering as a company. They would have to charge VAT, but that's not a disadvantage any more. As a registered company they can claim back the VAT they pay out on supplies, saving themselves quite a bit of money. | |||
"Private schools and private medical take people trained by the state. Once we sort that anomaly put them we can see if the premiums / fees shouldn't be taxed. But ATM it's not helping relieve pressure. The demand for medical and schools is the same. We need to work on the supply. Not reshape the demand to benefit those of us who can afford it. State trained, is paid by us tax payers. If they go into the private sector the customer pays for them, and the same customer still pays for the training and wages of the NHS employees and teachers. I agree it needs sorting because it is taking the piss to add VAT onto that too. They will still send their kids to private schools, can't see a mass exodus into the state system, don't think it will happen. It will piss people off and be the topic of the week come September but they'll still drop off little Tarquin and Philomena non the less. Mrs x Why do you feel the way you do towards people who make a choice to privately educate their children? Why do you think we didn't send our children to private school? Our youngest was a border at Mount St Mary's in Spinkhill, Derbyshire. He went there as it was the best option for his Rugby. So do know a little about the private system and why parents send their kids there and it's not all about giving them the best start in life. A lot of the time it's a status thing, 'look at us sending our kids to private school'. These kind of parents will still send their offsprings there because they think it reflects good on them. Mrs x Without doubt you will have parents doing things for bragging rights. But I think there are more parents that send their children to private school as a priority above and beyond their holidays and flash cars. For those parents that have given up on the nicer things, adding 20% to their outgoings at this time is just dragging them down, because they will try and pay it, especially if they are already committed to the school. I do sympathise with these parents but, and this was when my son went to school, which was quite a while ago, if you could afford 37k a year, it wasn't because you were foregoing flash cars and holidays. I'm not telling anyone how to spend their money but I don't think it will have a massive impact in the number of kids going to private schools. I must admit this is just based upon our own experience but school fees was never an 'easy' chat, everyone moaned about them but everyone came back each term. Mrs x And you are conflating day schools/students and borders. Avg day school fees are still a whopping £15k but not over £40k. 99% of pvt sch are not Eton, Harrow, or Winchester! Sorry day students are obviously still ridiculously expensive but not as much as borders. I still think they will return to their schools in September. And I know that not every school is not Eton, Harrow or Winchester but the fees are similar no matter where you go. At the time I think there was only about 2-3k difference for Eton to where we sent our son. I understand paying more is shit for anyone. But it's still a choice which the vast majority in this country don't have. Mrs x This September and possibly next September won’t probably see a big fall as parents won’t want to disrupt GCSE or A Level. But I think we will see a gradual reduction in number of pupils as middle incomers change tack (see my earlier post) and bursary kids are forced out.Why will bursary kids be pushed out? Mrs x Because Labour are saying these schools are not charities and are therefore not entitled to have the tax breaks that charities receive. So if they are not charities why would they continue to be charitable. Wave bye bye to bursaries!And that's been decided already? Mrs x Labour have not pledged to remove charitable status from private schools, so where have you got this from. Nothing quoted about the loss of bursaries and scholarships. It's also not a given that all schools will pass this on to those paying fees. Removing the exemption does not necessarily mean fees would go up by the standard 20% VAT rate. The IFS suggests that what it calls private schools' effective VAT rate would be closer to 15%, because for the first time they will be able to deduct the VAT they pay when buying goods and services. All private schools are different, and some may decide to put up their fees more than others. It is likely that private school attendance would fall as a result of the change, but it is difficult to know by how much. The average cost of private school fees has risen by 20% in real terms since 2010, and by 55% since 2003, without VAT, the IFS says. However, the proportion of children being privately-educated over the period has not fallen. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c033dp0z1edo So like I said before I don't think it will have an impact on the numbers that's being put out. In fact the aiFS said it could have an impact on numbers as low as 3% upto 7%. Mrs x Labour are being tricksy. They may not remove charity status but they are removing the financial benefits of being a charity. So they will effectively no longer be charities so why should they continue to act charitably. Of course the schools have not announced that, it would be awful PR, but it will happen over time.They have not removed charitable status, you are taking 2+2 and coming up with 5. You think they will do this but you don't know, this is not like you, you normally back up you comments but not this time, ots just your feeling I think I have backed up what I've said with the thoughts of the IFS. So as it stands bursaries and scholarships will continue as will these schools charitable status. Mrscx" Mr Discretion has given you a well explained answer. This policy will force these schools to reassess how they are structured. If the Govt wants to treat them like a business then they will start to act like a business. Why do you think they will continue to offer means tested bursaries? How do you think those are funded in the first place? By the full fees paid by the other parents. Force those parents to pay more by adding VAT and they are no longer going to be so willing to fund places for children whose parents cannot afford the fees. This will diminish the limited levels of diversity in these schools way further and only genuinely rich kids will attend. I’m not making this up. I know multiple people this will impact and what they are planning to do. Sorry Norty but I think you have swallowed Labours messaging on this. They have based this policy in a set of number crunching by the IFS that did not undertake one single interview or qualitative study with the people this will actually impact, the parents. I give it 2-3 years to see the actual impact snd how this will end up resulting in a net loss to the taxpayer. | |||
" I give it 2-3 years to see the actual impact snd how this will end up resulting in a net loss to the taxpayer." This policy has nothing to do with the taxpayer gaining anything, least of all financially. It's purely ideological. The proposed financial "gain" is a fig leaf to make it sound rational. | |||
" I give it 2-3 years to see the actual impact snd how this will end up resulting in a net loss to the taxpayer. This policy has nothing to do with the taxpayer gaining anything, least of all financially. It's purely ideological. The proposed financial "gain" is a fig leaf to make it sound rational." Precisely = punitive populist policy | |||
"If Labour’s initiatives will hurt any group, it’s the bottom tier of the top five per cent of earners. These are not your typical strivers." " It will probably hurt the small private religious schools the most. Of the 210 (registered) Muslim schools in the UK, 180 are private and 30 are state funded. This allows more control over curriculum, etc. Labour might have a hard time with their already alienated Muslim voter base. This also extends to other religions and cultures, who want more autonomy in education. These are not rich people - they're parents who make financial sacrifices to educate their children their way. Perhaps the real loser is diversity, as these smaller schools close and everyone gets a cookie-cutter government approved education... Except for the really rich, who can afford some independence. | |||
| |||
| |||
"So there is a rumour circulating that as well as VAT on private school fees, Labour are also considering adding VAT to private health insurance and treatment. Seems that despite these taxpayers funding this out of post tax net income and in the process being a net contributor to the exchequer for services they could but won’t use and therefore saving taxpayers a fortune, Labour see it as fair game to impose double taxation." Vat on private health insurance could back fire if denplan is closed as private health insurance lots use private health in lots of diferant ways. | |||
| |||
