FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Eton to raise fees to £63,000 in response to VAT change
Eton to raise fees to £63,000 in response to VAT change
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Eton college has sent a letter to parents saying it will raise its fees by a fifth in response to the government’s removal of the VAT exemption on private schools. The annual fees will increase from £52,749 to about £63,000. In the letter, the school said: “The provost and fellows regret that the government has chosen to tax education in this way.’’ From January the government will remove the VAT exemption and business rates relief for private schools, in order to generate funding for 6,500 new teachers in state schools. Should the government put Vat on private healthcare " Are you saying private healthcare is currently exempt? | |||
| |||
"Eton college has sent a letter to parents saying it will raise its fees by a fifth in response to the government’s removal of the VAT exemption on private schools. The annual fees will increase from £52,749 to about £63,000. In the letter, the school said: “The provost and fellows regret that the government has chosen to tax education in this way.’’ From January the government will remove the VAT exemption and business rates relief for private schools, in order to generate funding for 6,500 new teachers in state schools. Should the government put Vat on private healthcare Are you saying private healthcare is currently exempt?" Yes and dental service. | |||
 | |||
"I do not agree with VAT being added to private school fees. But fair’s fair so yes add it to private healthcare also! After all why not penalise people who are reducing pressure on state provision by choosing how to spend their post tax net income "Would you add vat to all private healthcare Dentist, Chiropody, Fertility, Nursing homes. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I do not agree with VAT being added to private school fees. But fair’s fair so yes add it to private healthcare also! After all why not penalise people who are reducing pressure on state provision by choosing how to spend their post tax net income
Would you add vat to all private healthcare Dentist, Chiropody, Fertility, Nursing homes. "The rationale for adding it to school fees is the same so yeah why not? Or you know, don’t add it to school fees either | |||
"the ending of luxury education being subsidised by the taxpayer is very, very long overdue." How is it subsidised? | |||
| |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. " You've said this kind of thing before. Do you really think that any policy that shifts tax burden off ordinary people onto the ultra wealthy is just "envy"? | |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. You've said this kind of thing before. Do you really think that any policy that shifts tax burden off ordinary people onto the ultra wealthy is just "envy"?" Are you saying everyone who attends private school is “ultra wealthy”? | |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. You've said this kind of thing before. Do you really think that any policy that shifts tax burden off ordinary people onto the ultra wealthy is just "envy"?" This policy is not impacting the ultra wealthy it is impacting the parents who can least afford it and are doing their best to provide for their children. The politics of envy is a mind and emotional weapon of the left wing, it plays right into the narrative of populist left wing bitterness towards people who they believe are all ultra rich. | |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. You've said this kind of thing before. Do you really think that any policy that shifts tax burden off ordinary people onto the ultra wealthy is just "envy"? This policy is not impacting the ultra wealthy it is impacting the parents who can least afford it and are doing their best to provide for their children. The politics of envy is a mind and emotional weapon of the left wing, it plays right into the narrative of populist left wing bitterness towards people who they believe are all ultra rich. " Eton has some boys on 100% bursaries. 100%!!!! @NotMe is right. The ultra wealthy will just absorb 20%. Just a bit less for the trust fund. There are plenty of middle class parents who can just about afford who won’t now. There are those who rely on scholarships and others on bursaries that will likely see those removed in future. It is those people who are affected. The diversity in private schools will disappear as they become the preserve of rich! | |||
| |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. You've said this kind of thing before. Do you really think that any policy that shifts tax burden off ordinary people onto the ultra wealthy is just "envy"? This policy is not impacting the ultra wealthy it is impacting the parents who can least afford it and are doing their best to provide for their children. The politics of envy is a mind and emotional weapon of the left wing, it plays right into the narrative of populist left wing bitterness towards people who they believe are all ultra rich. Eton has some boys on 100% bursaries. 100%!!!! @NotMe is right. The ultra wealthy will just absorb 20%. Just a bit less for the trust fund. There are plenty of middle class parents who can just about afford who won’t now. There are those who rely on scholarships and others on bursaries that will likely see those removed in future. It is those people who are affected. The diversity in private schools will disappear as they become the preserve of rich!" i very much doubt that the 7.41% of the enrolement who recieve 100% bursery will have to pay any vat, so that's a nonsense argument to be fair. | |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. You've said this kind of thing before. Do you really think that any policy that shifts tax burden off ordinary people onto the ultra wealthy is just "envy"? This policy is not impacting the ultra wealthy it is impacting the parents who can least afford it and are doing their best to provide for their children. The politics of envy is a mind and emotional weapon of the left wing, it plays right into the narrative of populist left wing bitterness towards people who they believe are all ultra rich. Eton has some boys on 100% bursaries. 100%!!!! @NotMe is right. The ultra wealthy will just absorb 20%. Just a bit less for the trust fund. There are plenty of middle class parents who can just about afford who won’t now. There are those who rely on scholarships and others on bursaries that will likely see those removed in future. It is those people who are affected. The diversity in private schools will disappear as they become the preserve of rich! i very much doubt that the 7.41% of the enrolement who recieve 100% bursery will have to pay any vat, so that's a nonsense argument to be fair. " Totally missing the point. Eton have said this year the bursaries will not be affected. However, bursaries will be withdrawn because if you say these schools are not charities then they will stop acting charitably. Multiply that by the entire sector and a lot of kids affected. | |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. You've said this kind of thing before. Do you really think that any policy that shifts tax burden off ordinary people onto the ultra wealthy is just "envy"? This policy is not impacting the ultra wealthy it is impacting the parents who can least afford it and are doing their best to provide for their children. The politics of envy is a mind and emotional weapon of the left wing, it plays right into the narrative of populist left wing bitterness towards people who they believe are all ultra rich. Eton has some boys on 100% bursaries. 100%!!!! @NotMe is right. The ultra wealthy will just absorb 20%. Just a bit less for the trust fund. There are plenty of middle class parents who can just about afford who won’t now. There are those who rely on scholarships and others on bursaries that will likely see those removed in future. It is those people who are affected. The diversity in private schools will disappear as they become the preserve of rich! i very much doubt that the 7.41% of the enrolement who recieve 100% bursery will have to pay any vat, so that's a nonsense argument to be fair. " Do you struggling reading, or just arguing something different for the sake of it. Birldn said that bursaries will likely be removed (he has a good argument for that). Not that those people of bursaries will have to pay VAT. | |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. You've said this kind of thing before. Do you really think that any policy that shifts tax burden off ordinary people onto the ultra wealthy is just "envy"? This policy is not impacting the ultra wealthy it is impacting the parents who can least afford it and are doing their best to provide for their children. The politics of envy is a mind and emotional weapon of the left wing, it plays right into the narrative of populist left wing bitterness towards people who they believe are all ultra rich. Eton has some boys on 100% bursaries. 100%!!!! @NotMe is right. The ultra wealthy will just absorb 20%. Just a bit less for the trust fund. There are plenty of middle class parents who can just about afford who won’t now. There are those who rely on scholarships and others on bursaries that will likely see those removed in future. It is those people who are affected. The diversity in private schools will disappear as they become the preserve of rich! i very much doubt that the 7.41% of the enrolement who recieve 100% bursery will have to pay any vat, so that's a nonsense argument to be fair. Totally missing the point. Eton have said this year the bursaries will not be affected. However, bursaries will be withdrawn because if you say these schools are not charities then they will stop acting charitably. Multiply that by the entire sector and a lot of kids affected." so they'll be dogs in the manger .... this would just prove that thier faux charitability was nothing more than a sardonic tax evasion scheme. some schools will prosper and doubtless the poorly managed ones will not. removeing the tax subsidy will increase competition and improve the quality being offered | |||
"Do you struggling reading "  | |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. You've said this kind of thing before. Do you really think that any policy that shifts tax burden off ordinary people onto the ultra wealthy is just "envy"? This policy is not impacting the ultra wealthy it is impacting the parents who can least afford it and are doing their best to provide for their children. The politics of envy is a mind and emotional weapon of the left wing, it plays right into the narrative of populist left wing bitterness towards people who they believe are all ultra rich. Eton has some boys on 100% bursaries. 100%!!!! @NotMe is right. The ultra wealthy will just absorb 20%. Just a bit less for the trust fund. There are plenty of middle class parents who can just about afford who won’t now. There are those who rely on scholarships and others on bursaries that will likely see those removed in future. It is those people who are affected. The diversity in private schools will disappear as they become the preserve of rich! i very much doubt that the 7.41% of the enrolement who recieve 100% bursery will have to pay any vat, so that's a nonsense argument to be fair. Totally missing the point. Eton have said this year the bursaries will not be affected. However, bursaries will be withdrawn because if you say these schools are not charities then they will stop acting charitably. Multiply that by the entire sector and a lot of kids affected. so they'll be dogs in the manger .... this would just prove that thier faux charitability was nothing more than a sardonic tax evasion scheme. some schools will prosper and doubtless the poorly managed ones will not. removeing the tax subsidy will increase competition and improve the quality being offered" Again spectacularly missing the point. People who are not wealthy have the opportunity for their kids to attend private schools due to their talent (scholarships) or if have a low income funded places (bursaries). These subsidies are financed by the parents paying full fees. Why would that continue? What will happen over the next few years: 1. Bursaries will disappear meaning no low income children at private schools further reducing diversity. 2. Middle income earners who are just about able to afford school fees will be priced out forcing them to return to state sector. 3. This will mean the private school sector will shrink reducing the VAT income the Govt expects to get. 4. It will also mean that those middle income folks will use their financial muscle to but homes in the catchment areas of best state schools further increasing house prices in those areas pushing out poorer people. 5. Private schools that survive will then become even more elite exacerbating the divide. What Labour SHOULD HAVE DONE is say “right you say private schools are charities, then prove it. Increase your charitable activity above this minimum threshold to retain charity status. If you don’t want to do that it is fine but we will now class you as a business subject to VAT, your choice” This will over the next few years become a net loss to taxpayers with less VAT collected than expected and increased numbers of pupils in state schools requiring funding. | |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. You've said this kind of thing before. Do you really think that any policy that shifts tax burden off ordinary people onto the ultra wealthy is just "envy"? This policy is not impacting the ultra wealthy it is impacting the parents who can least afford it and are doing their best to provide for their children. The politics of envy is a mind and emotional weapon of the left wing, it plays right into the narrative of populist left wing bitterness towards people who they believe are all ultra rich. Eton has some boys on 100% bursaries. 100%!!!! @NotMe is right. The ultra wealthy will just absorb 20%. Just a bit less for the trust fund. There are plenty of middle class parents who can just about afford who won’t now. There are those who rely on scholarships and others on bursaries that will likely see those removed in future. It is those people who are affected. The diversity in private schools will disappear as they become the preserve of rich! i very much doubt that the 7.41% of the enrolement who recieve 100% bursery will have to pay any vat, so that's a nonsense argument to be fair. Totally missing the point. Eton have said this year the bursaries will not be affected. However, bursaries will be withdrawn because if you say these schools are not charities then they will stop acting charitably. Multiply that by the entire sector and a lot of kids affected. so they'll be dogs in the manger .... this would just prove that thier faux charitability was nothing more than a sardonic tax evasion scheme. some schools will prosper and doubtless the poorly managed ones will not. removeing the tax subsidy will increase competition and improve the quality being offered" It will indeed increase competition, for more places at state run schools. That will create a loss to education budgets and will be picked up by the general public. In short you will no doubt be contributing your taxes to educate the children who once benefited from the “faux charitable “ support that cost you nothing. The gains in this policy are nothing more than dog whistling to the leftists from the Labour Party ahead of the election, it was aimed squarely at their voters who revel in the thought of bringing down the rich, the fact is the rich are never effected by such things. The working person who is not going to be taxed by this government, will now be picking up the bill, the politics of envy prevents this own goal being understood. | |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. You've said this kind of thing before. Do you really think that any policy that shifts tax burden off ordinary people onto the ultra wealthy is just "envy"? This policy is not impacting the ultra wealthy it is impacting the parents who can least afford it and are doing their best to provide for their children. The politics of envy is a mind and emotional weapon of the left wing, it plays right into the narrative of populist left wing bitterness towards people who they believe are all ultra rich. Eton has some boys on 100% bursaries. 100%!!!! @NotMe is right. The ultra wealthy will just absorb 20%. Just a bit less for the trust fund. There are plenty of middle class parents who can just about afford who won’t now. There are those who rely on scholarships and others on bursaries that will likely see those removed in future. It is those people who are affected. The diversity in private schools will disappear as they become the preserve of rich! i very much doubt that the 7.41% of the enrolement who recieve 100% bursery will have to pay any vat, so that's a nonsense argument to be fair. Totally missing the point. Eton have said this year the bursaries will not be affected. However, bursaries will be withdrawn because if you say these schools are not charities then they will stop acting charitably. Multiply that by the entire sector and a lot of kids affected. so they'll be dogs in the manger .... this would just prove that thier faux charitability was nothing more than a sardonic tax evasion scheme. some schools will prosper and doubtless the poorly managed ones will not. removeing the tax subsidy will increase competition and improve the quality being offered Again spectacularly missing the point. People who are not wealthy have the opportunity for their kids to attend private schools due to their talent (scholarships) or if have a low income funded places (bursaries). These subsidies are financed by the parents paying full fees. Why would that continue? What will happen over the next few years: 1. Bursaries will disappear meaning no low income children at private schools further reducing diversity. 2. Middle income earners who are just about able to afford school fees will be priced out forcing them to return to state sector. 3. This will mean the private school sector will shrink reducing the VAT income the Govt expects to get. 4. It will also mean that those middle income folks will use their financial muscle to but homes in the catchment areas of best state schools further increasing house prices in those areas pushing out poorer people. 5. Private schools that survive will then become even more elite exacerbating the divide. What Labour SHOULD HAVE DONE is say “right you say private schools are charities, then prove it. Increase your charitable activity above this minimum threshold to retain charity status. If you don’t want to do that it is fine but we will now class you as a business subject to VAT, your choice” This will over the next few years become a net loss to taxpayers with less VAT collected than expected and increased numbers of pupils in state schools requiring funding." i disagree totally and think you are missing the point. competition between schools will increase as they begin to undercut each other and parents will benefit from increased choice, so will shop accordingly with the added bonus that the taxpayer will benefit from the revenue produced by luxury education services rather than having to subsidise it. it's win win all round. | |||
| |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. You've said this kind of thing before. Do you really think that any policy that shifts tax burden off ordinary people onto the ultra wealthy is just "envy"? This policy is not impacting the ultra wealthy it is impacting the parents who can least afford it and are doing their best to provide for their children. The politics of envy is a mind and emotional weapon of the left wing, it plays right into the narrative of populist left wing bitterness towards people who they believe are all ultra rich. Eton has some boys on 100% bursaries. 100%!!!! @NotMe is right. The ultra wealthy will just absorb 20%. Just a bit less for the trust fund. There are plenty of middle class parents who can just about afford who won’t now. There are those who rely on scholarships and others on bursaries that will likely see those removed in future. It is those people who are affected. The diversity in private schools will disappear as they become the preserve of rich! i very much doubt that the 7.41% of the enrolement who recieve 100% bursery will have to pay any vat, so that's a nonsense argument to be fair. Totally missing the point. Eton have said this year the bursaries will not be affected. However, bursaries will be withdrawn because if you say these schools are not charities then they will stop acting charitably. Multiply that by the entire sector and a lot of kids affected. so they'll be dogs in the manger .... this would just prove that thier faux charitability was nothing more than a sardonic tax evasion scheme. some schools will prosper and doubtless the poorly managed ones will not. removeing the tax subsidy will increase competition and improve the quality being offered Again spectacularly missing the point. People who are not wealthy have the opportunity for their kids to attend private schools due to their talent (scholarships) or if have a low income funded places (bursaries). These subsidies are financed by the parents paying full fees. Why would that continue? What will happen over the next few years: 1. Bursaries will disappear meaning no low income children at private schools further reducing diversity. 2. Middle income earners who are just about able to afford school fees will be priced out forcing them to return to state sector. 3. This will mean the private school sector will shrink reducing the VAT income the Govt expects to get. 4. It will also mean that those middle income folks will use their financial muscle to but homes in the catchment areas of best state schools further increasing house prices in those areas pushing out poorer people. 5. Private schools that survive will then become even more elite exacerbating the divide. What Labour SHOULD HAVE DONE is say “right you say private schools are charities, then prove it. Increase your charitable activity above this minimum threshold to retain charity status. If you don’t want to do that it is fine but we will now class you as a business subject to VAT, your choice” This will over the next few years become a net loss to taxpayers with less VAT collected than expected and increased numbers of pupils in state schools requiring funding. i disagree totally and think you are missing the point. competition between schools will increase as they begin to undercut each other and parents will benefit from increased choice, so will shop accordingly with the added bonus that the taxpayer will benefit from the revenue produced by luxury education services rather than having to subsidise it. it's win win all round. "I disagree back at you as approx 80% of costs to these schools is the teachers so the only way to reduce costs will be to cut teachers and increase class sizes reducing their appeal. | |||
" i disagree totally and think you are missing the point. competition between schools will increase as they begin to undercut each other and parents will benefit from increased choice, so will shop accordingly with the added bonus that the taxpayer will benefit from the revenue produced by luxury education services rather than having to subsidise it. it's win win all round. "Wrong. People who want their children at Eton will not be out-competitioned (sic lol) by Cambridge - Benendon - Charterhouse - Kings - Harrow. etc and decide by finance to send their children to them. You are totally not understanding the 'class imperative' of the Public School system. | |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. You've said this kind of thing before. Do you really think that any policy that shifts tax burden off ordinary people onto the ultra wealthy is just "envy"? This policy is not impacting the ultra wealthy it is impacting the parents who can least afford it and are doing their best to provide for their children. The politics of envy is a mind and emotional weapon of the left wing, it plays right into the narrative of populist left wing bitterness towards people who they believe are all ultra rich. Eton has some boys on 100% bursaries. 100%!!!! @NotMe is right. The ultra wealthy will just absorb 20%. Just a bit less for the trust fund. There are plenty of middle class parents who can just about afford who won’t now. There are those who rely on scholarships and others on bursaries that will likely see those removed in future. It is those people who are affected. The diversity in private schools will disappear as they become the preserve of rich! i very much doubt that the 7.41% of the enrolement who recieve 100% bursery will have to pay any vat, so that's a nonsense argument to be fair. Totally missing the point. Eton have said this year the bursaries will not be affected. However, bursaries will be withdrawn because if you say these schools are not charities then they will stop acting charitably. Multiply that by the entire sector and a lot of kids affected. so they'll be dogs in the manger .... this would just prove that thier faux charitability was nothing more than a sardonic tax evasion scheme. some schools will prosper and doubtless the poorly managed ones will not. removeing the tax subsidy will increase competition and improve the quality being offered Again spectacularly missing the point. People who are not wealthy have the opportunity for their kids to attend private schools due to their talent (scholarships) or if have a low income funded places (bursaries). These subsidies are financed by the parents paying full fees. Why would that continue? What will happen over the next few years: 1. Bursaries will disappear meaning no low income children at private schools further reducing diversity. 2. Middle income earners who are just about able to afford school fees will be priced out forcing them to return to state sector. 3. This will mean the private school sector will shrink reducing the VAT income the Govt expects to get. 4. It will also mean that those middle income folks will use their financial muscle to but homes in the catchment areas of best state schools further increasing house prices in those areas pushing out poorer people. 5. Private schools that survive will then become even more elite exacerbating the divide. What Labour SHOULD HAVE DONE is say “right you say private schools are charities, then prove it. Increase your charitable activity above this minimum threshold to retain charity status. If you don’t want to do that it is fine but we will now class you as a business subject to VAT, your choice” This will over the next few years become a net loss to taxpayers with less VAT collected than expected and increased numbers of pupils in state schools requiring funding. i disagree totally and think you are missing the point. competition between schools will increase as they begin to undercut each other and parents will benefit from increased choice, so will shop accordingly with the added bonus that the taxpayer will benefit from the revenue produced by luxury education services rather than having to subsidise it. it's win win all round. "Do you understand the private education system and infrastructure or are you basing your assumptions on ideas you have formed yourself. how does a parent shop accordingly? The answer to that will show the answer to undercutting each other is not going to happen. | |||
" i disagree totally and think you are missing the point. competition between schools will increase as they begin to undercut each other and parents will benefit from increased choice, so will shop accordingly with the added bonus that the taxpayer will benefit from the revenue produced by luxury education services rather than having to subsidise it. it's win win all round. "Wrong. People who want their children at Eton will not be out-competitioned (sic lol) by Cambridge - Benendon - Charterhouse - Kings - Harrow. etc and decide by finance to send their children to them. You are totally not understanding the 'class imperative' of the Public School system. (typo - Can't have that on a thread about education lol) | |||
| |||
"Another thing…many of the kids in boarding schools are the children of Civil Servants who work abroad for the foreign office and Officer class in the military posted overseas. Those boarding school places are funded by the tax payer who will now have to pay more due to VAT being added." Yes. It’s reported uk diplomats children in private schools cost the taxpayer £13m annually. | |||
"Another thing…many of the kids in boarding schools are the children of Civil Servants who work abroad for the foreign office and Officer class in the military posted overseas. Those boarding school places are funded by the tax payer who will now have to pay more due to VAT being added." Wow. What a stupid argument. Where does the VAT charged to the taxpayer go? To the taxpayer!!!! And you have somehow linked private schools' charitable status to paying VAT? Why does paying VAT affect their charitable status? Please explain. What is interesting if the quoted figures are correct is that Eton is passing on the full 20% VAT to parents whereas Eton will now be able to reclaim VAT on all their VATable input costs, which they couldn't before. So a nice extra profit for them at the parents expense which the fools on here will blame Labour. | |||
" What is interesting if the quoted figures are correct is that Eton is passing on the full 20% VAT to parents whereas Eton will now be able to reclaim VAT on all their VATable input costs, which they couldn't before. So a nice extra profit for them at the parents expense which the fools on here will blame Labour." You're double-deducting. They couldn't previously reclaim VAT because they weren't paying any. The net effect is that the fees will attract VAT, which they can offset against the new VAT they will pay, which they didn't have to before. I.e. 20% of the current fee will need to come from somewhere. In this case, parents. | |||
" What is interesting if the quoted figures are correct is that Eton is passing on the full 20% VAT to parents whereas Eton will now be able to reclaim VAT on all their VATable input costs, which they couldn't before. So a nice extra profit for them at the parents expense which the fools on here will blame Labour. You're double-deducting. They couldn't previously reclaim VAT because they weren't paying any. The net effect is that the fees will attract VAT, which they can offset against the new VAT they will pay, which they didn't have to before. I.e. 20% of the current fee will need to come from somewhere. In this case, parents." No! The clue is Value Added Tax (VAT). For a VAT registered organisation, input costs on which VAT has been charged, the VAT can be offset against the VAT the organisation has to charge on its end product. If an organisation isn't VAT registered then it can't offset input VAT. Regarding private education, charging the full 20% VAT to parents is estimated to increase the school's surplus by 5%. This policy may be an own goal for Labour as newly registered VAT organisations may be able to reclaim the last 10 years of VAT on qualifying expenditure. E.g. the VAT on building a new Sports Hall. I haven't studied the small print, but public schools might actually receive huge VAT refunds, in which case Labour would have fucked up badly in the short term. | |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. You've said this kind of thing before. Do you really think that any policy that shifts tax burden off ordinary people onto the ultra wealthy is just "envy"? Are you saying everyone who attends private school is “ultra wealthy”?" Eton. Pretty much yes. | |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. You've said this kind of thing before. Do you really think that any policy that shifts tax burden off ordinary people onto the ultra wealthy is just "envy"? This policy is not impacting the ultra wealthy it is impacting the parents who can least afford it and are doing their best to provide for their children. " Then it's not "envy" it's a more Tory type policy? " The politics of envy is a mind and emotional weapon of the left wing, it plays right into the narrative of populist left wing bitterness towards people who they believe are all ultra rich. " Is it though? It seems to get wheeled out every time someone expresses a desire for the tax burden to not be shifted onto the most vulnerable people in society. | |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. You've said this kind of thing before. Do you really think that any policy that shifts tax burden off ordinary people onto the ultra wealthy is just "envy"? Are you saying everyone who attends private school is “ultra wealthy”? Eton. Pretty much yes." Even those on bursaries? Some of which are on 100% bursaries. To get a bursary it is means tested based on your income and assets. | |||
" What is interesting if the quoted figures are correct is that Eton is passing on the full 20% VAT to parents whereas Eton will now be able to reclaim VAT on all their VATable input costs, which they couldn't before. So a nice extra profit for them at the parents expense which the fools on here will blame Labour. You're double-deducting. They couldn't previously reclaim VAT because they weren't paying any. The net effect is that the fees will attract VAT, which they can offset against the new VAT they will pay, which they didn't have to before. I.e. 20% of the current fee will need to come from somewhere. In this case, parents. No! The clue is Value Added Tax (VAT). For a VAT registered organisation, input costs on which VAT has been charged, the VAT can be offset against the VAT the organisation has to charge on its end product. If an organisation isn't VAT registered then it can't offset input VAT. Regarding private education, charging the full 20% VAT to parents is estimated to increase the school's surplus by 5%. This policy may be an own goal for Labour as newly registered VAT organisations may be able to reclaim the last 10 years of VAT on qualifying expenditure. E.g. the VAT on building a new Sports Hall. I haven't studied the small print, but public schools might actually receive huge VAT refunds, in which case Labour would have fucked up badly in the short term." Agreed. It IS going to be a net loss to the exchequer. | |||
"Another thing…many of the kids in boarding schools are the children of Civil Servants who work abroad for the foreign office and Officer class in the military posted overseas. Those boarding school places are funded by the tax payer who will now have to pay more due to VAT being added. Wow. What a stupid argument. Where does the VAT charged to the taxpayer go? To the taxpayer!!!! And you have somehow linked private schools' charitable status to paying VAT? Why does paying VAT affect their charitable status? Please explain. What is interesting if the quoted figures are correct is that Eton is passing on the full 20% VAT to parents whereas Eton will now be able to reclaim VAT on all their VATable input costs, which they couldn't before. So a nice extra profit for them at the parents expense which the fools on here will blame Labour." Wooden dollars (or pounds in this case). The Foreign Office will be charged VAT by schools coming out of their budget and increasing it. HMRC will then collect the VAT. Then HM Treasury will allocate budget to Foreign Office to pay school fees with VAT and so in ad infinitum. So it simply recycles without actually providing a net benefit to taxpayers. Just a pointless accounting exercise that will cost to administer. | |||
" And you have somehow linked private schools' charitable status to paying VAT? Why does paying VAT affect their charitable status? Please explain." Private Schools are/were exempt from paying VAT due to holding charitable status (a status recognised and proven by the Charities Commission). They have no shareholders, lay no dividends, all surplus they make is required to be paid back into the charity to be invested in line with the “objects” of the charity (in this case the provision of education) overseen by trustees. Labour are removing the exemption. Over the coming years you will start to see these schools operate as businesses and reduce or stop their charitable activity. Wave bye bye to scholarships and bursaries. Say farewell to partnerships with local state schools. Forget communities and state school pupils getting access to private school facilities for free. I don’t think you really understand this topic and need to do more research beyond Labour rhetoric. And stop saying people’s opinions are “stupid” | |||
| |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. You've said this kind of thing before. Do you really think that any policy that shifts tax burden off ordinary people onto the ultra wealthy is just "envy"? Are you saying everyone who attends private school is “ultra wealthy”? Eton. Pretty much yes. Even those on bursaries? Some of which are on 100% bursaries. To get a bursary it is means tested based on your income and assets." If they're on bursaries, then the price hikes won't impact them? My point was more general though, about the claim that anyone who is against the tax burden being shifted from the rich to the poor is 'envious'. I don't see it. | |||
| |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. " It’s the “revenge” / “day of reckoning” politics that comrade Corbyn was promising at the previous election | |||
" And you have somehow linked private schools' charitable status to paying VAT? Why does paying VAT affect their charitable status? Please explain. Private Schools are/were exempt from paying VAT due to holding charitable status (a status recognised and proven by the Charities Commission). They have no shareholders, lay no dividends, all surplus they make is required to be paid back into the charity to be invested in line with the “objects” of the charity (in this case the provision of education) overseen by trustees. Labour are removing the exemption. Over the coming years you will start to see these schools operate as businesses and reduce or stop their charitable activity. Wave bye bye to scholarships and bursaries. Say farewell to partnerships with local state schools. Forget communities and state school pupils getting access to private school facilities for free. I don’t think you really understand this topic and need to do more research beyond Labour rhetoric. And stop saying people’s opinions are “stupid” "Well explained. But being seen to be hammering the rich is exactly the optic that starker wants, and the knock on effects that you mention won’t make headlines. | |||
"Another thing…many of the kids in boarding schools are the children of Civil Servants who work abroad for the foreign office and Officer class in the military posted overseas. Those boarding school places are funded by the tax payer who will now have to pay more due to VAT being added. Wow. What a stupid argument. Where does the VAT charged to the taxpayer go? To the taxpayer!!!! And you have somehow linked private schools' charitable status to paying VAT? Why does paying VAT affect their charitable status? Please explain. What is interesting if the quoted figures are correct is that Eton is passing on the full 20% VAT to parents whereas Eton will now be able to reclaim VAT on all their VATable input costs, which they couldn't before. So a nice extra profit for them at the parents expense which the fools on here will blame Labour. Wooden dollars (or pounds in this case). The Foreign Office will be charged VAT by schools coming out of their budget and increasing it. HMRC will then collect the VAT. Then HM Treasury will allocate budget to Foreign Office to pay school fees with VAT and so in ad infinitum. So it simply recycles without actually providing a net benefit to taxpayers. Just a pointless accounting exercise that will cost to administer." No it's a one off change. Like all large organisations the FO will have systems that code costs and split out the relevant VAT(if any). It will be a ministerial decision whether the FO has to absorb the increased cost or gets additional funding. Again a one-off. It really is no big administration issue, VAT is routinely accounted and has been for decades. Imposing VAT on private schools will benefit general tax revenues with no cost. | |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. You've said this kind of thing before. Do you really think that any policy that shifts tax burden off ordinary people onto the ultra wealthy is just "envy"? Are you saying everyone who attends private school is “ultra wealthy”? Eton. Pretty much yes. Even those on bursaries? Some of which are on 100% bursaries. To get a bursary it is means tested based on your income and assets. If they're on bursaries, then the price hikes won't impact them? My point was more general though, about the claim that anyone who is against the tax burden being shifted from the rich to the poor is 'envious'. I don't see it. " Not directly in year one no. But as been discussed, bursaries will start to disappear and eventually no longer be offered. These elite schools will become even more elite as only the ultra rich can afford it. There is no tax burden to shift in THIS case. Every parent with a kid in private school already saves the tax payer approx £8k per year per kid per year. | |||
"Another thing…many of the kids in boarding schools are the children of Civil Servants who work abroad for the foreign office and Officer class in the military posted overseas. Those boarding school places are funded by the tax payer who will now have to pay more due to VAT being added. Wow. What a stupid argument. Where does the VAT charged to the taxpayer go? To the taxpayer!!!! And you have somehow linked private schools' charitable status to paying VAT? Why does paying VAT affect their charitable status? Please explain. What is interesting if the quoted figures are correct is that Eton is passing on the full 20% VAT to parents whereas Eton will now be able to reclaim VAT on all their VATable input costs, which they couldn't before. So a nice extra profit for them at the parents expense which the fools on here will blame Labour. Wooden dollars (or pounds in this case). The Foreign Office will be charged VAT by schools coming out of their budget and increasing it. HMRC will then collect the VAT. Then HM Treasury will allocate budget to Foreign Office to pay school fees with VAT and so in ad infinitum. So it simply recycles without actually providing a net benefit to taxpayers. Just a pointless accounting exercise that will cost to administer. No it's a one off change. Like all large organisations the FO will have systems that code costs and split out the relevant VAT(if any). It will be a ministerial decision whether the FO has to absorb the increased cost or gets additional funding. Again a one-off. It really is no big administration issue, VAT is routinely accounted and has been for decades. Imposing VAT on private schools will benefit general tax revenues with no cost." It’s an annual charge for every year of a pupil’s school career. Your point on whether FCO absorb within existing budgets or get a lift is irrelevant as the outcome is the same, money raised simply cycles around the inter-departmental charging systems creating no net benefit to taxpayers at all and in fact will create a cost to administer! | |||
"BTW “Supplies of education provided by an eligible body, such as a university, are exempt from VAT.” Only from January that will not include private/independent schools. Universities next?" More scaremongering. There is no free state funded alternative to University Level education, hence why politicians haven't proposed charging VAT. Private school education is a choice. Same logic as to why VAT is charged on taxis and private hire transport, but not on buses and trains. | |||
"BTW “Supplies of education provided by an eligible body, such as a university, are exempt from VAT.” Only from January that will not include private/independent schools. Universities next? More scaremongering. There is no free state funded alternative to University Level education, hence why politicians haven't proposed charging VAT. Private school education is a choice. Same logic as to why VAT is charged on taxis and private hire transport, but not on buses and trains. " Except the provision of education in the UK has always been exempt from VAT. | |||
"Another thing…many of the kids in boarding schools are the children of Civil Servants who work abroad for the foreign office and Officer class in the military posted overseas. Those boarding school places are funded by the tax payer who will now have to pay more due to VAT being added. Wow. What a stupid argument. Where does the VAT charged to the taxpayer go? To the taxpayer!!!! And you have somehow linked private schools' charitable status to paying VAT? Why does paying VAT affect their charitable status? Please explain. What is interesting if the quoted figures are correct is that Eton is passing on the full 20% VAT to parents whereas Eton will now be able to reclaim VAT on all their VATable input costs, which they couldn't before. So a nice extra profit for them at the parents expense which the fools on here will blame Labour. Wooden dollars (or pounds in this case). The Foreign Office will be charged VAT by schools coming out of their budget and increasing it. HMRC will then collect the VAT. Then HM Treasury will allocate budget to Foreign Office to pay school fees with VAT and so in ad infinitum. So it simply recycles without actually providing a net benefit to taxpayers. Just a pointless accounting exercise that will cost to administer. No it's a one off change. Like all large organisations the FO will have systems that code costs and split out the relevant VAT(if any). It will be a ministerial decision whether the FO has to absorb the increased cost or gets additional funding. Again a one-off. It really is no big administration issue, VAT is routinely accounted and has been for decades. Imposing VAT on private schools will benefit general tax revenues with no cost. It’s an annual charge for every year of a pupil’s school career. Your point on whether FCO absorb within existing budgets or get a lift is irrelevant as the outcome is the same, money raised simply cycles around the inter-departmental charging systems creating no net benefit to taxpayers at all and in fact will create a cost to administer!" But all government departments have accounted for VAT for decades. Why is one rate change from zero to 20% on one cost code going to cause any administration difficulties whatsoever? | |||
"Another thing…many of the kids in boarding schools are the children of Civil Servants who work abroad for the foreign office and Officer class in the military posted overseas. Those boarding school places are funded by the tax payer who will now have to pay more due to VAT being added. Wow. What a stupid argument. Where does the VAT charged to the taxpayer go? To the taxpayer!!!! And you have somehow linked private schools' charitable status to paying VAT? Why does paying VAT affect their charitable status? Please explain. What is interesting if the quoted figures are correct is that Eton is passing on the full 20% VAT to parents whereas Eton will now be able to reclaim VAT on all their VATable input costs, which they couldn't before. So a nice extra profit for them at the parents expense which the fools on here will blame Labour. Wooden dollars (or pounds in this case). The Foreign Office will be charged VAT by schools coming out of their budget and increasing it. HMRC will then collect the VAT. Then HM Treasury will allocate budget to Foreign Office to pay school fees with VAT and so in ad infinitum. So it simply recycles without actually providing a net benefit to taxpayers. Just a pointless accounting exercise that will cost to administer. No it's a one off change. Like all large organisations the FO will have systems that code costs and split out the relevant VAT(if any). It will be a ministerial decision whether the FO has to absorb the increased cost or gets additional funding. Again a one-off. It really is no big administration issue, VAT is routinely accounted and has been for decades. Imposing VAT on private schools will benefit general tax revenues with no cost. It’s an annual charge for every year of a pupil’s school career. Your point on whether FCO absorb within existing budgets or get a lift is irrelevant as the outcome is the same, money raised simply cycles around the inter-departmental charging systems creating no net benefit to taxpayers at all and in fact will create a cost to administer! But all government departments have accounted for VAT for decades. Why is one rate change from zero to 20% on one cost code going to cause any administration difficulties whatsoever? " I didn’t say difficulties I said no net benefit (and a bit of admin on top). It’s called “wooden dollars” and creates no value whatsoever. Note you didn’t come back on your point re charity status | |||
"BTW “Supplies of education provided by an eligible body, such as a university, are exempt from VAT.” Only from January that will not include private/independent schools. Universities next? More scaremongering. There is no free state funded alternative to University Level education, hence why politicians haven't proposed charging VAT. Private school education is a choice. Same logic as to why VAT is charged on taxis and private hire transport, but not on buses and trains. Except the provision of education in the UK has always been exempt from VAT." Yes but Labour had clearly stated very publicly and in their manifesto that this would be changed if they were elected. Private schools will adapt, about 50% of them are already run as businesses benefitting from the VAT tax break. Some others are very wealthy and enjoy the benefits (and restrictions) of charity status. State school roll numbers are declining atm. Little public sympathy as only 7% of children are privately educated. | |||
"BTW “Supplies of education provided by an eligible body, such as a university, are exempt from VAT.” Only from January that will not include private/independent schools. Universities next? More scaremongering. There is no free state funded alternative to University Level education, hence why politicians haven't proposed charging VAT. Private school education is a choice. Same logic as to why VAT is charged on taxis and private hire transport, but not on buses and trains. Except the provision of education in the UK has always been exempt from VAT. Yes but Labour had clearly stated very publicly and in their manifesto that this would be changed if they were elected. Private schools will adapt, about 50% of them are already run as businesses benefitting from the VAT tax break. Some others are very wealthy and enjoy the benefits (and restrictions) of charity status. State school roll numbers are declining atm. Little public sympathy as only 7% of children are privately educated. " Sorry are you making a point here or stating the obvious? This is politics of envy. It is extra spiteful making the change in January rather than September, ie within a school year. That is totally deliberate because they know most parents do not want to disrupt their child’s education so the numbers exiting will be lower and Labour can say “see it hasn’t had a massive effect” then quietly sweep under the carpet when numbers start changing in September and going forward. Totally cynical and spiteful. I’ve already said much further up the thread what WILL happen. I know this first hand talking to parents in private schools around where we live. This will end up delivering zero net benefit once it all shakes out. It hammers the middle classes. Denies opportunities for working classes. And the super rich won’t even feel it. It is completely punitive. As I said above, why not have opportunity to retain charity status benefits of VAT exemption if they meet a raised minimum threshold of charitable activity? For example, how about requiring 25% of pupils to be on means tested bursaries? ie INCREASE access to people who can’t afford it! Reductive, punitive, populist, politics. Nothing more! | |||
| |||
"BTW “Supplies of education provided by an eligible body, such as a university, are exempt from VAT.” Only from January that will not include private/independent schools. Universities next? More scaremongering. There is no free state funded alternative to University Level education, hence why politicians haven't proposed charging VAT. Private school education is a choice. Same logic as to why VAT is charged on taxis and private hire transport, but not on buses and trains. Except the provision of education in the UK has always been exempt from VAT. Yes but Labour had clearly stated very publicly and in their manifesto that this would be changed if they were elected. Private schools will adapt, about 50% of them are already run as businesses benefitting from the VAT tax break. Some others are very wealthy and enjoy the benefits (and restrictions) of charity status. State school roll numbers are declining atm. Little public sympathy as only 7% of children are privately educated. Sorry are you making a point here or stating the obvious? This is politics of envy. It is extra spiteful making the change in January rather than September, ie within a school year. That is totally deliberate because they know most parents do not want to disrupt their child’s education so the numbers exiting will be lower and Labour can say “see it hasn’t had a massive effect” then quietly sweep under the carpet when numbers start changing in September and going forward. Totally cynical and spiteful. I’ve already said much further up the thread what WILL happen. I know this first hand talking to parents in private schools around where we live. This will end up delivering zero net benefit once it all shakes out. It hammers the middle classes. Denies opportunities for working classes. And the super rich won’t even feel it. It is completely punitive. As I said above, why not have opportunity to retain charity status benefits of VAT exemption if they meet a raised minimum threshold of charitable activity? For example, how about requiring 25% of pupils to be on means tested bursaries? ie INCREASE access to people who can’t afford it! Reductive, punitive, populist, politics. Nothing more!" Absolutely. It’s all about the optics and a few headlines, rather than bring a meaningful, coherent policy. | |||
| |||
"The private school sector will contract (the big names and boarding schools will be fine). Those counties that still have selective Grammar Schools will start to see an influx of wealthier people into their catchment areas. These people will use their wealth to push up house prices creating middle class enclaves pricing out the poor. They will also buy lots of additional private tutoring so their child can ace the entrance exams pushing out talented poor kids who cannot afford the extra help." Hard to disagree. Any squeeze that forces private schools to cease, or forced parents to seek alternatives for their children, can only have negative knock-on effects. I went to a state school, by the way, just in case anyone assumes otherwise. | |||
| |||
"Working with the sector to get more less well-off kids into top schools would have been a far more progressive route to take. " Indeed but nah, let’s stick it to the “rich” and just accept the collateral damage. | |||
"Working with the sector to get more less well-off kids into top schools would have been a far more progressive route to take. " And SAVE taxpayers money as those kids would not need their state school place funded! | |||
"The private school sector will contract (the big names and boarding schools will be fine). Those counties that still have selective Grammar Schools will start to see an influx of wealthier people into their catchment areas. These people will use their wealth to push up house prices creating middle class enclaves pricing out the poor. They will also buy lots of additional private tutoring so their child can ace the entrance exams pushing out talented poor kids who cannot afford the extra help." I fear you are spot on with this assessment. It won't be shown like that in the future though I suspect. The government will just point to the extra money raised through VAT as they will have hard figures. They will not mention all those that could have gone private and therefore save the country money, but can no longer as the bursaries have disappeared. The extra cost to the state system will just be lost in the overall figures. In trying to get headlines of targeting the rich they have hit everyone else | |||
"The private school sector will contract (the big names and boarding schools will be fine). Those counties that still have selective Grammar Schools will start to see an influx of wealthier people into their catchment areas. These people will use their wealth to push up house prices creating middle class enclaves pricing out the poor. They will also buy lots of additional private tutoring so their child can ace the entrance exams pushing out talented poor kids who cannot afford the extra help. I fear you are spot on with this assessment. It won't be shown like that in the future though I suspect. The government will just point to the extra money raised through VAT as they will have hard figures. They will not mention all those that could have gone private and therefore save the country money, but can no longer as the bursaries have disappeared. The extra cost to the state system will just be lost in the overall figures. In trying to get headlines of targeting the rich they have hit everyone else" So you are suggesting there will be places not taken up in these private schools and these students not able to afford to go will enter the state system, which will then put pressure on the state system and therefore cost the tax payer more, is that a correct reading of the situation people are putting forward here? Mrs x | |||
"The private school sector will contract (the big names and boarding schools will be fine). Those counties that still have selective Grammar Schools will start to see an influx of wealthier people into their catchment areas. These people will use their wealth to push up house prices creating middle class enclaves pricing out the poor. They will also buy lots of additional private tutoring so their child can ace the entrance exams pushing out talented poor kids who cannot afford the extra help. I fear you are spot on with this assessment. It won't be shown like that in the future though I suspect. The government will just point to the extra money raised through VAT as they will have hard figures. They will not mention all those that could have gone private and therefore save the country money, but can no longer as the bursaries have disappeared. The extra cost to the state system will just be lost in the overall figures. In trying to get headlines of targeting the rich they have hit everyone elseSo you are suggesting there will be places not taken up in these private schools and these students not able to afford to go will enter the state system, which will then put pressure on the state system and therefore cost the tax payer more, is that a correct reading of the situation people are putting forward here? Mrs x" The suggestion is a pretty simple one, that there will be parents who can not afford the increased fees and will send their kids to state schools instead, increasing the cost to the taxpayer. This is not scaremongering, that’s have been surveys, articles etc on this very subject. | |||
| |||
"The private school sector will contract (the big names and boarding schools will be fine). Those counties that still have selective Grammar Schools will start to see an influx of wealthier people into their catchment areas. These people will use their wealth to push up house prices creating middle class enclaves pricing out the poor. They will also buy lots of additional private tutoring so their child can ace the entrance exams pushing out talented poor kids who cannot afford the extra help. I fear you are spot on with this assessment. It won't be shown like that in the future though I suspect. The government will just point to the extra money raised through VAT as they will have hard figures. They will not mention all those that could have gone private and therefore save the country money, but can no longer as the bursaries have disappeared. The extra cost to the state system will just be lost in the overall figures. In trying to get headlines of targeting the rich they have hit everyone elseSo you are suggesting there will be places not taken up in these private schools and these students not able to afford to go will enter the state system, which will then put pressure on the state system and therefore cost the tax payer more, is that a correct reading of the situation people are putting forward here? Mrs x The suggestion is a pretty simple one, that there will be parents who can not afford the increased fees and will send their kids to state schools instead, increasing the cost to the taxpayer. This is not scaremongering, that’s have been surveys, articles etc on this very subject. " So how do you explain the fact that there's been much higher increases in costs of sending pupils to private schools with hardly no impact on the numbers attending such schools. "The share of pupils in private schools has been constant at about 6–7% for at least the last 20 years despite a 20% real-terms increase in average private school fees since 2010 and a 55% rise since 2003." The Institute for Fiscal Studies, July 2023. This report states that the removal of VAT would have little impact on student numbers. If you look at the figures since 2003 relating to costs this would seem to be correct. And as for bursaries The Provost has come out and said, in the letter informing parents of the rise that it will not affect those receiving bursaries. Eton has not said its planning to remove bursaries or scholarships. This was reported in The Financial Times 30 August 2024. So this particular issue, seems to be a non starter and is just fear mongering. In fact a recent report from Durham University it points out that "The number of pupils at private schools has remained at a very similar level for years in England despite significant fee increases. It is possible that the impact of this proposed policy on the sector itself would be minimal. But if voters give it a chance to be implemented, and the possible pitfalls are accounted for, it may have a positive impact on society." June 2024. So not all doom and gloom then. Mrs x | |||
"The private school sector will contract (the big names and boarding schools will be fine). Those counties that still have selective Grammar Schools will start to see an influx of wealthier people into their catchment areas. These people will use their wealth to push up house prices creating middle class enclaves pricing out the poor. They will also buy lots of additional private tutoring so their child can ace the entrance exams pushing out talented poor kids who cannot afford the extra help. I fear you are spot on with this assessment. It won't be shown like that in the future though I suspect. The government will just point to the extra money raised through VAT as they will have hard figures. They will not mention all those that could have gone private and therefore save the country money, but can no longer as the bursaries have disappeared. The extra cost to the state system will just be lost in the overall figures. In trying to get headlines of targeting the rich they have hit everyone elseSo you are suggesting there will be places not taken up in these private schools and these students not able to afford to go will enter the state system, which will then put pressure on the state system and therefore cost the tax payer more, is that a correct reading of the situation people are putting forward here? Mrs x The suggestion is a pretty simple one, that there will be parents who can not afford the increased fees and will send their kids to state schools instead, increasing the cost to the taxpayer. This is not scaremongering, that’s have been surveys, articles etc on this very subject. " I know this os anecdotal but I have first hand experience here… At one of the private schools near me we know quite a few parents. Within this group there are some who are wealthy and whole annoyed will just absorb the VAT increase. There are some who can just about afford but the increase will seriously challenge that ability. They are already planning ahead for Sept 25 for a move as won’t disrupt school year 24/25. There are some who are low income families in receipt of bursaries. One is 80% the other 30%. In both cases the VAT rise on the proportion of fees they still have to pay is very worrying and they are unsure how they will do it. When bursaries are removed, which inevitably will happen down the line, their child(ren) will have to leave. All of those kids are saving taxpayers £8k per year in unused state school places. When they do move back into state over next 1-2yrs their places will need to be funded by taxpayers and there will also be the loss of VAT on the fees they would have paid if they stayed in private. There is also not a queue of kids waiting to take their places so ultimately this could see the school start to get into financial difficulty. They will first contract their offer and lay off staff (job losses) which will increase class sizes making them a less attractive offer to those parents who can still afford it. Eventually you could see the school folding. | |||
"The private school sector will contract (the big names and boarding schools will be fine). Those counties that still have selective Grammar Schools will start to see an influx of wealthier people into their catchment areas. These people will use their wealth to push up house prices creating middle class enclaves pricing out the poor. They will also buy lots of additional private tutoring so their child can ace the entrance exams pushing out talented poor kids who cannot afford the extra help. I fear you are spot on with this assessment. It won't be shown like that in the future though I suspect. The government will just point to the extra money raised through VAT as they will have hard figures. They will not mention all those that could have gone private and therefore save the country money, but can no longer as the bursaries have disappeared. The extra cost to the state system will just be lost in the overall figures. In trying to get headlines of targeting the rich they have hit everyone elseSo you are suggesting there will be places not taken up in these private schools and these students not able to afford to go will enter the state system, which will then put pressure on the state system and therefore cost the tax payer more, is that a correct reading of the situation people are putting forward here? Mrs x The suggestion is a pretty simple one, that there will be parents who can not afford the increased fees and will send their kids to state schools instead, increasing the cost to the taxpayer. This is not scaremongering, that’s have been surveys, articles etc on this very subject. So how do you explain the fact that there's been much higher increases in costs of sending pupils to private schools with hardly no impact on the numbers attending such schools. "The share of pupils in private schools has been constant at about 6–7% for at least the last 20 years despite a 20% real-terms increase in average private school fees since 2010 and a 55% rise since 2003." The Institute for Fiscal Studies, July 2023. This report states that the removal of VAT would have little impact on student numbers. If you look at the figures since 2003 relating to costs this would seem to be correct. And as for bursaries The Provost has come out and said, in the letter informing parents of the rise that it will not affect those receiving bursaries. Eton has not said its planning to remove bursaries or scholarships. This was reported in The Financial Times 30 August 2024. So this particular issue, seems to be a non starter and is just fear mongering. In fact a recent report from Durham University it points out that "The number of pupils at private schools has remained at a very similar level for years in England despite significant fee increases. It is possible that the impact of this proposed policy on the sector itself would be minimal. But if voters give it a chance to be implemented, and the possible pitfalls are accounted for, it may have a positive impact on society." June 2024. So not all doom and gloom then. Mrs x " A 20 per cent increase on top of other large increases in recent years, is a step too far for many parents. The figure raised is minimal on the context of a national budget, it is purely grandstanding and point-scoring | |||
"The private school sector will contract (the big names and boarding schools will be fine). Those counties that still have selective Grammar Schools will start to see an influx of wealthier people into their catchment areas. These people will use their wealth to push up house prices creating middle class enclaves pricing out the poor. They will also buy lots of additional private tutoring so their child can ace the entrance exams pushing out talented poor kids who cannot afford the extra help. I fear you are spot on with this assessment. It won't be shown like that in the future though I suspect. The government will just point to the extra money raised through VAT as they will have hard figures. They will not mention all those that could have gone private and therefore save the country money, but can no longer as the bursaries have disappeared. The extra cost to the state system will just be lost in the overall figures. In trying to get headlines of targeting the rich they have hit everyone elseSo you are suggesting there will be places not taken up in these private schools and these students not able to afford to go will enter the state system, which will then put pressure on the state system and therefore cost the tax payer more, is that a correct reading of the situation people are putting forward here? Mrs x The suggestion is a pretty simple one, that there will be parents who can not afford the increased fees and will send their kids to state schools instead, increasing the cost to the taxpayer. This is not scaremongering, that’s have been surveys, articles etc on this very subject. So how do you explain the fact that there's been much higher increases in costs of sending pupils to private schools with hardly no impact on the numbers attending such schools. "The share of pupils in private schools has been constant at about 6–7% for at least the last 20 years despite a 20% real-terms increase in average private school fees since 2010 and a 55% rise since 2003." The Institute for Fiscal Studies, July 2023. This report states that the removal of VAT would have little impact on student numbers. If you look at the figures since 2003 relating to costs this would seem to be correct. And as for bursaries The Provost has come out and said, in the letter informing parents of the rise that it will not affect those receiving bursaries. Eton has not said its planning to remove bursaries or scholarships. This was reported in The Financial Times 30 August 2024. So this particular issue, seems to be a non starter and is just fear mongering. In fact a recent report from Durham University it points out that "The number of pupils at private schools has remained at a very similar level for years in England despite significant fee increases. It is possible that the impact of this proposed policy on the sector itself would be minimal. But if voters give it a chance to be implemented, and the possible pitfalls are accounted for, it may have a positive impact on society." June 2024. So not all doom and gloom then. Mrs x " Because a steady slow increase in fees, while uncomfortable, is able to be absorbed just like any other price increases. Anecdotally I know several parents who increased their mortgage borrowing to cover school fees, so all debt not income. A sudden 20% increase in the middle of the school year is a huge challenge for anyone. Also, as always, that research does not appear to take account of scholarships and bursaries. | |||
"The private school sector will contract (the big names and boarding schools will be fine). Those counties that still have selective Grammar Schools will start to see an influx of wealthier people into their catchment areas. These people will use their wealth to push up house prices creating middle class enclaves pricing out the poor. They will also buy lots of additional private tutoring so their child can ace the entrance exams pushing out talented poor kids who cannot afford the extra help. I fear you are spot on with this assessment. It won't be shown like that in the future though I suspect. The government will just point to the extra money raised through VAT as they will have hard figures. They will not mention all those that could have gone private and therefore save the country money, but can no longer as the bursaries have disappeared. The extra cost to the state system will just be lost in the overall figures. In trying to get headlines of targeting the rich they have hit everyone elseSo you are suggesting there will be places not taken up in these private schools and these students not able to afford to go will enter the state system, which will then put pressure on the state system and therefore cost the tax payer more, is that a correct reading of the situation people are putting forward here? Mrs x The suggestion is a pretty simple one, that there will be parents who can not afford the increased fees and will send their kids to state schools instead, increasing the cost to the taxpayer. This is not scaremongering, that’s have been surveys, articles etc on this very subject. I know this os anecdotal but I have first hand experience here… At one of the private schools near me we know quite a few parents. Within this group there are some who are wealthy and whole annoyed will just absorb the VAT increase. There are some who can just about afford but the increase will seriously challenge that ability. They are already planning ahead for Sept 25 for a move as won’t disrupt school year 24/25. There are some who are low income families in receipt of bursaries. One is 80% the other 30%. In both cases the VAT rise on the proportion of fees they still have to pay is very worrying and they are unsure how they will do it. When bursaries are removed, which inevitably will happen down the line, their child(ren) will have to leave. All of those kids are saving taxpayers £8k per year in unused state school places. When they do move back into state over next 1-2yrs their places will need to be funded by taxpayers and there will also be the loss of VAT on the fees they would have paid if they stayed in private. There is also not a queue of kids waiting to take their places so ultimately this could see the school start to get into financial difficulty. They will first contract their offer and lay off staff (job losses) which will increase class sizes making them a less attractive offer to those parents who can still afford it. Eventually you could see the school folding. " Bursaries will not be removed and those pupils receiving them are exempt from the introdiction of VAT. So as I asked before, how were these parents and similar able to absorb the much higher costs of sending their kids to school considering the huge rise in costs in fees since 2003, over 55%. And why has the number of pupils stayed the same, with little to no impact of such increases in fees for the last 20 years? Mrs x | |||
"The private school sector will contract (the big names and boarding schools will be fine). Those counties that still have selective Grammar Schools will start to see an influx of wealthier people into their catchment areas. These people will use their wealth to push up house prices creating middle class enclaves pricing out the poor. They will also buy lots of additional private tutoring so their child can ace the entrance exams pushing out talented poor kids who cannot afford the extra help. I fear you are spot on with this assessment. It won't be shown like that in the future though I suspect. The government will just point to the extra money raised through VAT as they will have hard figures. They will not mention all those that could have gone private and therefore save the country money, but can no longer as the bursaries have disappeared. The extra cost to the state system will just be lost in the overall figures. In trying to get headlines of targeting the rich they have hit everyone elseSo you are suggesting there will be places not taken up in these private schools and these students not able to afford to go will enter the state system, which will then put pressure on the state system and therefore cost the tax payer more, is that a correct reading of the situation people are putting forward here? Mrs x The suggestion is a pretty simple one, that there will be parents who can not afford the increased fees and will send their kids to state schools instead, increasing the cost to the taxpayer. This is not scaremongering, that’s have been surveys, articles etc on this very subject. I know this os anecdotal but I have first hand experience here… At one of the private schools near me we know quite a few parents. Within this group there are some who are wealthy and whole annoyed will just absorb the VAT increase. There are some who can just about afford but the increase will seriously challenge that ability. They are already planning ahead for Sept 25 for a move as won’t disrupt school year 24/25. There are some who are low income families in receipt of bursaries. One is 80% the other 30%. In both cases the VAT rise on the proportion of fees they still have to pay is very worrying and they are unsure how they will do it. When bursaries are removed, which inevitably will happen down the line, their child(ren) will have to leave. All of those kids are saving taxpayers £8k per year in unused state school places. When they do move back into state over next 1-2yrs their places will need to be funded by taxpayers and there will also be the loss of VAT on the fees they would have paid if they stayed in private. There is also not a queue of kids waiting to take their places so ultimately this could see the school start to get into financial difficulty. They will first contract their offer and lay off staff (job losses) which will increase class sizes making them a less attractive offer to those parents who can still afford it. Eventually you could see the school folding. Bursaries will not be removed and those pupils receiving them are exempt from the introdiction of VAT. So as I asked before, how were these parents and similar able to absorb the much higher costs of sending their kids to school considering the huge rise in costs in fees since 2003, over 55%. And why has the number of pupils stayed the same, with little to no impact of such increases in fees for the last 20 years? Mrs x" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Why are you confident bursaries won’t disappear? On what basis are they offered in the first place? Bursaries are part of the charitable activity undertaken by the private schools because they are charities. Labour have said we don’t think you are charities you are businesses (despite no shareholders extracting dividends) and we are removing the benefits of being a charity. So why continue to act like a charity? | |||
| |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most!" Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). | |||
"The private school sector will contract (the big names and boarding schools will be fine). Those counties that still have selective Grammar Schools will start to see an influx of wealthier people into their catchment areas. These people will use their wealth to push up house prices creating middle class enclaves pricing out the poor. They will also buy lots of additional private tutoring so their child can ace the entrance exams pushing out talented poor kids who cannot afford the extra help. I fear you are spot on with this assessment. It won't be shown like that in the future though I suspect. The government will just point to the extra money raised through VAT as they will have hard figures. They will not mention all those that could have gone private and therefore save the country money, but can no longer as the bursaries have disappeared. The extra cost to the state system will just be lost in the overall figures. In trying to get headlines of targeting the rich they have hit everyone elseSo you are suggesting there will be places not taken up in these private schools and these students not able to afford to go will enter the state system, which will then put pressure on the state system and therefore cost the tax payer more, is that a correct reading of the situation people are putting forward here? Mrs x The suggestion is a pretty simple one, that there will be parents who can not afford the increased fees and will send their kids to state schools instead, increasing the cost to the taxpayer. This is not scaremongering, that’s have been surveys, articles etc on this very subject. I know this os anecdotal but I have first hand experience here… At one of the private schools near me we know quite a few parents. Within this group there are some who are wealthy and whole annoyed will just absorb the VAT increase. There are some who can just about afford but the increase will seriously challenge that ability. They are already planning ahead for Sept 25 for a move as won’t disrupt school year 24/25. There are some who are low income families in receipt of bursaries. One is 80% the other 30%. In both cases the VAT rise on the proportion of fees they still have to pay is very worrying and they are unsure how they will do it. When bursaries are removed, which inevitably will happen down the line, their child(ren) will have to leave. All of those kids are saving taxpayers £8k per year in unused state school places. When they do move back into state over next 1-2yrs their places will need to be funded by taxpayers and there will also be the loss of VAT on the fees they would have paid if they stayed in private. There is also not a queue of kids waiting to take their places so ultimately this could see the school start to get into financial difficulty. They will first contract their offer and lay off staff (job losses) which will increase class sizes making them a less attractive offer to those parents who can still afford it. Eventually you could see the school folding. Bursaries will not be removed and those pupils receiving them are exempt from the introdiction of VAT. So as I asked before, how were these parents and similar able to absorb the much higher costs of sending their kids to school considering the huge rise in costs in fees since 2003, over 55%. And why has the number of pupils stayed the same, with little to no impact of such increases in fees for the last 20 years? Mrs x 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Why are you confident bursaries won’t disappear? On what basis are they offered in the first place? Bursaries are part of the charitable activity undertaken by the private schools because they are charities. Labour have said we don’t think you are charities you are businesses (despite no shareholders extracting dividends) and we are removing the benefits of being a charity. So why continue to act like a charity?" Bursaries are not charitable per se. They are only offered to 'gifted' children. Schools like these operate on 'prestige', so being really charitable and offering opportunities to any poor child is out of the question. Only those who can 'enhance' the schools academic standards are given a chance. Not all 'rich' kids are bright and so by not increasing the talent pool means there will be a drop in standards of their pupils. You talk anecdotally about parents you know who are affected by this issue. Well I can tell you about my son and his experiences and how far such schools will go to gain 'prestige". Our son was pursued by several private schools due to his sporting prowess. These were not the highest echelon of such schools but still charged comparative fees and prided themselves on "sporting excellence". Our son was an international schoolboy rugby player for England and was also selected to play for the Irish Exiles. Initially he was offered a 50% scholarship but we declined saying we weren't prepared to pay the remaining 18k. So the school immediately came back and said they could provide a 25% bursary. We said we weren't willing to pay the remaining 9k. So a couple of days later we got a call saying the school had reached out to the 'Old Boys' network and they agreed to pay the remaining fees. So he went and played for this school and for the first time, maybe 2nd, the finished top of the Public Schools Rugby league. Now this is not the reason I'm saying I believe bursaries and scholarships won't be lost but it's how they put this team together. They had three Chilians, three Australians, a Samoan and one lad from Canada. All these kids 'scouted' and 'assisted' to attend this school. Now if schools like this are prepared to do this for 'sporting prestige' I'm positive they do this for the same reason academically. Prestige matters to these schools a great deal. So all that aside I think it will affect the smaller independant schools much more. Those that exist to teach pupils along the lines of what the parents want them taught, faith schools for example. The traditional boarding schools will not see much change. Mrs x | |||
"What's wrong with the principle of giving people choice? The choice to opt out of state-run education, healthcare, dentistry. If the state then saves money, then it's reasonable to get some credit via tax breaks for private institutions. Otherwise, it's double taxation right? The problem here is that Socialists have an authoritarian doctrine and hate the principle of personal choice." Double taxation? What do you mean. | |||
"Labour using the politics of envy to pander to the populist left. You've said this kind of thing before. Do you really think that any policy that shifts tax burden off ordinary people onto the ultra wealthy is just "envy"? Are you saying everyone who attends private school is “ultra wealthy”? Eton. Pretty much yes. Even those on bursaries? Some of which are on 100% bursaries. To get a bursary it is means tested based on your income and assets. If they're on bursaries, then the price hikes won't impact them? My point was more general though, about the claim that anyone who is against the tax burden being shifted from the rich to the poor is 'envious'. I don't see it. Not directly in year one no. But as been discussed, bursaries will start to disappear and eventually no longer be offered. These elite schools will become even more elite as only the ultra rich can afford it. There is no tax burden to shift in THIS case. Every parent with a kid in private school already saves the tax payer approx £8k per year per kid per year." I'm personally not worried about an ultra elite school becoming marginally more elite. And on the other point, fair enough. I don't know how much this costs/benefits the nation in the big picture. | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy)." Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol" Should have gone to Eton.   | |||
| |||
| |||
"What I believe is lost in this discussion is the structure and costs of private education. It seems people tend to have a preconceived idea of what the private sector costs, how it functions and the types of people who send their children to be privately educated. And maybe that is how it should be worded, instead of private school we discuss private education, the cost of education to a child outside of state education. A lower end cost of 20K - 30k a year to educate your child, it is in reach of many and many more with prudent personal spending. This should be encouraged not hindered, it reduces the strain on schools that have high classroom numbers and facilities that can't cope. So why would the government risk moving those lower end struggling families into a position that they now can no longer afford to educate their children privately, and have them move into already over subscribed state schools? The pay back in terms of ££'s is not significant enough to put even more strain on a weak state education system I would argue. However it looks left wing, so ticked a few boxes pre-election " "Low end struggling families" don't generally have 20K - 30k per kid, per year, knocking about in their bank account. | |||
"The private school sector will contract (the big names and boarding schools will be fine). Those counties that still have selective Grammar Schools will start to see an influx of wealthier people into their catchment areas. These people will use their wealth to push up house prices creating middle class enclaves pricing out the poor. They will also buy lots of additional private tutoring so their child can ace the entrance exams pushing out talented poor kids who cannot afford the extra help. I fear you are spot on with this assessment. It won't be shown like that in the future though I suspect. The government will just point to the extra money raised through VAT as they will have hard figures. They will not mention all those that could have gone private and therefore save the country money, but can no longer as the bursaries have disappeared. The extra cost to the state system will just be lost in the overall figures. In trying to get headlines of targeting the rich they have hit everyone elseSo you are suggesting there will be places not taken up in these private schools and these students not able to afford to go will enter the state system, which will then put pressure on the state system and therefore cost the tax payer more, is that a correct reading of the situation people are putting forward here? Mrs x The suggestion is a pretty simple one, that there will be parents who can not afford the increased fees and will send their kids to state schools instead, increasing the cost to the taxpayer. This is not scaremongering, that’s have been surveys, articles etc on this very subject. I know this os anecdotal but I have first hand experience here… At one of the private schools near me we know quite a few parents. Within this group there are some who are wealthy and whole annoyed will just absorb the VAT increase. There are some who can just about afford but the increase will seriously challenge that ability. They are already planning ahead for Sept 25 for a move as won’t disrupt school year 24/25. There are some who are low income families in receipt of bursaries. One is 80% the other 30%. In both cases the VAT rise on the proportion of fees they still have to pay is very worrying and they are unsure how they will do it. When bursaries are removed, which inevitably will happen down the line, their child(ren) will have to leave. All of those kids are saving taxpayers £8k per year in unused state school places. When they do move back into state over next 1-2yrs their places will need to be funded by taxpayers and there will also be the loss of VAT on the fees they would have paid if they stayed in private. There is also not a queue of kids waiting to take their places so ultimately this could see the school start to get into financial difficulty. They will first contract their offer and lay off staff (job losses) which will increase class sizes making them a less attractive offer to those parents who can still afford it. Eventually you could see the school folding. Bursaries will not be removed and those pupils receiving them are exempt from the introdiction of VAT. So as I asked before, how were these parents and similar able to absorb the much higher costs of sending their kids to school considering the huge rise in costs in fees since 2003, over 55%. And why has the number of pupils stayed the same, with little to no impact of such increases in fees for the last 20 years? Mrs x 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Why are you confident bursaries won’t disappear? On what basis are they offered in the first place? Bursaries are part of the charitable activity undertaken by the private schools because they are charities. Labour have said we don’t think you are charities you are businesses (despite no shareholders extracting dividends) and we are removing the benefits of being a charity. So why continue to act like a charity?Bursaries are not charitable per se. They are only offered to 'gifted' children. Schools like these operate on 'prestige', so being really charitable and offering opportunities to any poor child is out of the question. Only those who can 'enhance' the schools academic standards are given a chance. Not all 'rich' kids are bright and so by not increasing the talent pool means there will be a drop in standards of their pupils. You talk anecdotally about parents you know who are affected by this issue. Well I can tell you about my son and his experiences and how far such schools will go to gain 'prestige". Our son was pursued by several private schools due to his sporting prowess. These were not the highest echelon of such schools but still charged comparative fees and prided themselves on "sporting excellence". Our son was an international schoolboy rugby player for England and was also selected to play for the Irish Exiles. Initially he was offered a 50% scholarship but we declined saying we weren't prepared to pay the remaining 18k. So the school immediately came back and said they could provide a 25% bursary. We said we weren't willing to pay the remaining 9k. So a couple of days later we got a call saying the school had reached out to the 'Old Boys' network and they agreed to pay the remaining fees. So he went and played for this school and for the first time, maybe 2nd, the finished top of the Public Schools Rugby league. Now this is not the reason I'm saying I believe bursaries and scholarships won't be lost but it's how they put this team together. They had three Chilians, three Australians, a Samoan and one lad from Canada. All these kids 'scouted' and 'assisted' to attend this school. Now if schools like this are prepared to do this for 'sporting prestige' I'm positive they do this for the same reason academically. Prestige matters to these schools a great deal. So all that aside I think it will affect the smaller independant schools much more. Those that exist to teach pupils along the lines of what the parents want them taught, faith schools for example. The traditional boarding schools will not see much change. Mrs x" First of all that is amazing and you must be very proud. Second if you read what I have been saying then you will see we are in agreement. I said the big name schools and boarding schools (with foreign students) won’t be impacted. But the private school sector will contract and they won’t continue to offer bursaries funded by parents who are now being penalised with an additional 20% on top of their full fees. | |||
"What I believe is lost in this discussion is the structure and costs of private education. It seems people tend to have a preconceived idea of what the private sector costs, how it functions and the types of people who send their children to be privately educated. And maybe that is how it should be worded, instead of private school we discuss private education, the cost of education to a child outside of state education. A lower end cost of 20K - 30k a year to educate your child, it is in reach of many and many more with prudent personal spending. This should be encouraged not hindered, it reduces the strain on schools that have high classroom numbers and facilities that can't cope. So why would the government risk moving those lower end struggling families into a position that they now can no longer afford to educate their children privately, and have them move into already over subscribed state schools? The pay back in terms of ££'s is not significant enough to put even more strain on a weak state education system I would argue. However it looks left wing, so ticked a few boxes pre-election "Low end struggling families" don't generally have 20K - 30k per kid, per year, knocking about in their bank account. " It helps to read it in context.. the low end private education fees, that people will now struggle to pay. | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton. "I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice. | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice."Lol, put your kids through private education, even though state education did you well. Think about what you wrote. You deserve to pay VAT. | |||
"The private school sector will contract (the big names and boarding schools will be fine). Those counties that still have selective Grammar Schools will start to see an influx of wealthier people into their catchment areas. These people will use their wealth to push up house prices creating middle class enclaves pricing out the poor. They will also buy lots of additional private tutoring so their child can ace the entrance exams pushing out talented poor kids who cannot afford the extra help. I fear you are spot on with this assessment. It won't be shown like that in the future though I suspect. The government will just point to the extra money raised through VAT as they will have hard figures. They will not mention all those that could have gone private and therefore save the country money, but can no longer as the bursaries have disappeared. The extra cost to the state system will just be lost in the overall figures. In trying to get headlines of targeting the rich they have hit everyone elseSo you are suggesting there will be places not taken up in these private schools and these students not able to afford to go will enter the state system, which will then put pressure on the state system and therefore cost the tax payer more, is that a correct reading of the situation people are putting forward here? Mrs x The suggestion is a pretty simple one, that there will be parents who can not afford the increased fees and will send their kids to state schools instead, increasing the cost to the taxpayer. This is not scaremongering, that’s have been surveys, articles etc on this very subject. I know this os anecdotal but I have first hand experience here… At one of the private schools near me we know quite a few parents. Within this group there are some who are wealthy and whole annoyed will just absorb the VAT increase. There are some who can just about afford but the increase will seriously challenge that ability. They are already planning ahead for Sept 25 for a move as won’t disrupt school year 24/25. There are some who are low income families in receipt of bursaries. One is 80% the other 30%. In both cases the VAT rise on the proportion of fees they still have to pay is very worrying and they are unsure how they will do it. When bursaries are removed, which inevitably will happen down the line, their child(ren) will have to leave. All of those kids are saving taxpayers £8k per year in unused state school places. When they do move back into state over next 1-2yrs their places will need to be funded by taxpayers and there will also be the loss of VAT on the fees they would have paid if they stayed in private. There is also not a queue of kids waiting to take their places so ultimately this could see the school start to get into financial difficulty. They will first contract their offer and lay off staff (job losses) which will increase class sizes making them a less attractive offer to those parents who can still afford it. Eventually you could see the school folding. Bursaries will not be removed and those pupils receiving them are exempt from the introdiction of VAT. So as I asked before, how were these parents and similar able to absorb the much higher costs of sending their kids to school considering the huge rise in costs in fees since 2003, over 55%. And why has the number of pupils stayed the same, with little to no impact of such increases in fees for the last 20 years? Mrs x 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Why are you confident bursaries won’t disappear? On what basis are they offered in the first place? Bursaries are part of the charitable activity undertaken by the private schools because they are charities. Labour have said we don’t think you are charities you are businesses (despite no shareholders extracting dividends) and we are removing the benefits of being a charity. So why continue to act like a charity?Bursaries are not charitable per se. They are only offered to 'gifted' children. Schools like these operate on 'prestige', so being really charitable and offering opportunities to any poor child is out of the question. Only those who can 'enhance' the schools academic standards are given a chance. Not all 'rich' kids are bright and so by not increasing the talent pool means there will be a drop in standards of their pupils. You talk anecdotally about parents you know who are affected by this issue. Well I can tell you about my son and his experiences and how far such schools will go to gain 'prestige". Our son was pursued by several private schools due to his sporting prowess. These were not the highest echelon of such schools but still charged comparative fees and prided themselves on "sporting excellence". Our son was an international schoolboy rugby player for England and was also selected to play for the Irish Exiles. Initially he was offered a 50% scholarship but we declined saying we weren't prepared to pay the remaining 18k. So the school immediately came back and said they could provide a 25% bursary. We said we weren't willing to pay the remaining 9k. So a couple of days later we got a call saying the school had reached out to the 'Old Boys' network and they agreed to pay the remaining fees. So he went and played for this school and for the first time, maybe 2nd, the finished top of the Public Schools Rugby league. Now this is not the reason I'm saying I believe bursaries and scholarships won't be lost but it's how they put this team together. They had three Chilians, three Australians, a Samoan and one lad from Canada. All these kids 'scouted' and 'assisted' to attend this school. Now if schools like this are prepared to do this for 'sporting prestige' I'm positive they do this for the same reason academically. Prestige matters to these schools a great deal. So all that aside I think it will affect the smaller independant schools much more. Those that exist to teach pupils along the lines of what the parents want them taught, faith schools for example. The traditional boarding schools will not see much change. Mrs x First of all that is amazing and you must be very proud. Second if you read what I have been saying then you will see we are in agreement. I said the big name schools and boarding schools (with foreign students) won’t be impacted. But the private school sector will contract and they won’t continue to offer bursaries funded by parents who are now being penalised with an additional 20% on top of their full fees." I did say smaller schools will be affected. But the Eton thing is a little bit of a 'click bait' thing here on this thread. The fees quoted firstly are for boarders, it's not the rate for day students which I suspect is significantly lower. This will be the case for these schools that don't have boarders and only have day students. But it's still a big hike in fees. Don't get me wrong I empathise with those who will be genuinely affected by these rises. But like everything in life choices have to be made, you have to prioritise what you think is the most important. It calls for difficult decisions to be made. Mrs x | |||
"The private school sector will contract (the big names and boarding schools will be fine). Those counties that still have selective Grammar Schools will start to see an influx of wealthier people into their catchment areas. These people will use their wealth to push up house prices creating middle class enclaves pricing out the poor. They will also buy lots of additional private tutoring so their child can ace the entrance exams pushing out talented poor kids who cannot afford the extra help. I fear you are spot on with this assessment. It won't be shown like that in the future though I suspect. The government will just point to the extra money raised through VAT as they will have hard figures. They will not mention all those that could have gone private and therefore save the country money, but can no longer as the bursaries have disappeared. The extra cost to the state system will just be lost in the overall figures. In trying to get headlines of targeting the rich they have hit everyone elseSo you are suggesting there will be places not taken up in these private schools and these students not able to afford to go will enter the state system, which will then put pressure on the state system and therefore cost the tax payer more, is that a correct reading of the situation people are putting forward here? Mrs x The suggestion is a pretty simple one, that there will be parents who can not afford the increased fees and will send their kids to state schools instead, increasing the cost to the taxpayer. This is not scaremongering, that’s have been surveys, articles etc on this very subject. I know this os anecdotal but I have first hand experience here… At one of the private schools near me we know quite a few parents. Within this group there are some who are wealthy and whole annoyed will just absorb the VAT increase. There are some who can just about afford but the increase will seriously challenge that ability. They are already planning ahead for Sept 25 for a move as won’t disrupt school year 24/25. There are some who are low income families in receipt of bursaries. One is 80% the other 30%. In both cases the VAT rise on the proportion of fees they still have to pay is very worrying and they are unsure how they will do it. When bursaries are removed, which inevitably will happen down the line, their child(ren) will have to leave. All of those kids are saving taxpayers £8k per year in unused state school places. When they do move back into state over next 1-2yrs their places will need to be funded by taxpayers and there will also be the loss of VAT on the fees they would have paid if they stayed in private. There is also not a queue of kids waiting to take their places so ultimately this could see the school start to get into financial difficulty. They will first contract their offer and lay off staff (job losses) which will increase class sizes making them a less attractive offer to those parents who can still afford it. Eventually you could see the school folding. Bursaries will not be removed and those pupils receiving them are exempt from the introdiction of VAT. So as I asked before, how were these parents and similar able to absorb the much higher costs of sending their kids to school considering the huge rise in costs in fees since 2003, over 55%. And why has the number of pupils stayed the same, with little to no impact of such increases in fees for the last 20 years? Mrs x 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Why are you confident bursaries won’t disappear? On what basis are they offered in the first place? Bursaries are part of the charitable activity undertaken by the private schools because they are charities. Labour have said we don’t think you are charities you are businesses (despite no shareholders extracting dividends) and we are removing the benefits of being a charity. So why continue to act like a charity?Bursaries are not charitable per se. They are only offered to 'gifted' children. Schools like these operate on 'prestige', so being really charitable and offering opportunities to any poor child is out of the question. Only those who can 'enhance' the schools academic standards are given a chance. Not all 'rich' kids are bright and so by not increasing the talent pool means there will be a drop in standards of their pupils. You talk anecdotally about parents you know who are affected by this issue. Well I can tell you about my son and his experiences and how far such schools will go to gain 'prestige". Our son was pursued by several private schools due to his sporting prowess. These were not the highest echelon of such schools but still charged comparative fees and prided themselves on "sporting excellence". Our son was an international schoolboy rugby player for England and was also selected to play for the Irish Exiles. Initially he was offered a 50% scholarship but we declined saying we weren't prepared to pay the remaining 18k. So the school immediately came back and said they could provide a 25% bursary. We said we weren't willing to pay the remaining 9k. So a couple of days later we got a call saying the school had reached out to the 'Old Boys' network and they agreed to pay the remaining fees. So he went and played for this school and for the first time, maybe 2nd, the finished top of the Public Schools Rugby league. Now this is not the reason I'm saying I believe bursaries and scholarships won't be lost but it's how they put this team together. They had three Chilians, three Australians, a Samoan and one lad from Canada. All these kids 'scouted' and 'assisted' to attend this school. Now if schools like this are prepared to do this for 'sporting prestige' I'm positive they do this for the same reason academically. Prestige matters to these schools a great deal. So all that aside I think it will affect the smaller independant schools much more. Those that exist to teach pupils along the lines of what the parents want them taught, faith schools for example. The traditional boarding schools will not see much change. Mrs x First of all that is amazing and you must be very proud. Second if you read what I have been saying then you will see we are in agreement. I said the big name schools and boarding schools (with foreign students) won’t be impacted. But the private school sector will contract and they won’t continue to offer bursaries funded by parents who are now being penalised with an additional 20% on top of their full fees.I did say smaller schools will be affected. But the Eton thing is a little bit of a 'click bait' thing here on this thread. The fees quoted firstly are for boarders, it's not the rate for day students which I suspect is significantly lower. This will be the case for these schools that don't have boarders and only have day students. But it's still a big hike in fees. Don't get me wrong I empathise with those who will be genuinely affected by these rises. But like everything in life choices have to be made, you have to prioritise what you think is the most important. It calls for difficult decisions to be made. Mrs x" Ooo you and your sensible arguments, that will never catch on lol. | |||
"What I believe is lost in this discussion is the structure and costs of private education. It seems people tend to have a preconceived idea of what the private sector costs, how it functions and the types of people who send their children to be privately educated. And maybe that is how it should be worded, instead of private school we discuss private education, the cost of education to a child outside of state education. A lower end cost of 20K - 30k a year to educate your child, it is in reach of many and many more with prudent personal spending. This should be encouraged not hindered, it reduces the strain on schools that have high classroom numbers and facilities that can't cope. So why would the government risk moving those lower end struggling families into a position that they now can no longer afford to educate their children privately, and have them move into already over subscribed state schools? The pay back in terms of ££'s is not significant enough to put even more strain on a weak state education system I would argue. However it looks left wing, so ticked a few boxes pre-election "Low end struggling families" don't generally have 20K - 30k per kid, per year, knocking about in their bank account. It helps to read it in context.. the low end private education fees, that people will now struggle to pay. " There will be a thing strata of those who are on the line of being able to afford private education for their kids yes. Should government policy be catering to this specific group? | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice."I was just joshing. Public education can teach mathematics very well. | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice.
Lol, put your kids through private education, even though state education did you well.
Think about what you wrote.
You deserve to pay VAT. "Why? I already save taxpayers £8000 per year per kid. I could put them back jnto state costing you money but I won’t. Because I am wealthy enough to absorb it. However, I have friends who can’t. | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice."I understand how you feel but there will be millions that don't. They will say, you are part of a privileged few that have had tax breaks for years and now you are paying what is due. This will be from parents, who have maybe more than two kids, who earn very little and have found themselves hundreds of pounds worse off because their means tested benefit was changed. Poor people made actually poorer by the system. The same system that allowed you to send your child to school because the system said you didn't need to pay VAT on the fees. The same VAT these poor parents have to pay on everything they buy. They could argue the revenue clawed back from them, because they had three children has been diverted to other parents to enable them to avoid paying VAT on school fees. I'm not saying this but as I empathise for those parents who want to give their kids opportunities I can also empathise with poorer parents too. Mrs x | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice.I understand how you feel but there will be millions that don't.
They will say, you are part of a privileged few that have had tax breaks for years and now you are paying what is due.
This will be from parents, who have maybe more than two kids, who earn very little and have found themselves hundreds of pounds worse off because their means tested benefit was changed. Poor people made actually poorer by the system. The same system that allowed you to send your child to school because the system said you didn't need to pay VAT on the fees. The same VAT these poor parents have to pay on everything they buy. They could argue the revenue clawed back from them, because they had three children has been diverted to other parents to enable them to avoid paying VAT on school fees.
I'm not saying this but as I empathise for those parents who want to give their kids opportunities I can also empathise with poorer parents too.
Mrs x"Hundreds of pounds a month I meant, Mrs x | |||
"The private school sector will contract (the big names and boarding schools will be fine). Those counties that still have selective Grammar Schools will start to see an influx of wealthier people into their catchment areas. These people will use their wealth to push up house prices creating middle class enclaves pricing out the poor. They will also buy lots of additional private tutoring so their child can ace the entrance exams pushing out talented poor kids who cannot afford the extra help. I fear you are spot on with this assessment. It won't be shown like that in the future though I suspect. The government will just point to the extra money raised through VAT as they will have hard figures. They will not mention all those that could have gone private and therefore save the country money, but can no longer as the bursaries have disappeared. The extra cost to the state system will just be lost in the overall figures. In trying to get headlines of targeting the rich they have hit everyone elseSo you are suggesting there will be places not taken up in these private schools and these students not able to afford to go will enter the state system, which will then put pressure on the state system and therefore cost the tax payer more, is that a correct reading of the situation people are putting forward here? Mrs x The suggestion is a pretty simple one, that there will be parents who can not afford the increased fees and will send their kids to state schools instead, increasing the cost to the taxpayer. This is not scaremongering, that’s have been surveys, articles etc on this very subject. I know this os anecdotal but I have first hand experience here… At one of the private schools near me we know quite a few parents. Within this group there are some who are wealthy and whole annoyed will just absorb the VAT increase. There are some who can just about afford but the increase will seriously challenge that ability. They are already planning ahead for Sept 25 for a move as won’t disrupt school year 24/25. There are some who are low income families in receipt of bursaries. One is 80% the other 30%. In both cases the VAT rise on the proportion of fees they still have to pay is very worrying and they are unsure how they will do it. When bursaries are removed, which inevitably will happen down the line, their child(ren) will have to leave. All of those kids are saving taxpayers £8k per year in unused state school places. When they do move back into state over next 1-2yrs their places will need to be funded by taxpayers and there will also be the loss of VAT on the fees they would have paid if they stayed in private. There is also not a queue of kids waiting to take their places so ultimately this could see the school start to get into financial difficulty. They will first contract their offer and lay off staff (job losses) which will increase class sizes making them a less attractive offer to those parents who can still afford it. Eventually you could see the school folding. Bursaries will not be removed and those pupils receiving them are exempt from the introdiction of VAT. So as I asked before, how were these parents and similar able to absorb the much higher costs of sending their kids to school considering the huge rise in costs in fees since 2003, over 55%. And why has the number of pupils stayed the same, with little to no impact of such increases in fees for the last 20 years? Mrs x 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Why are you confident bursaries won’t disappear? On what basis are they offered in the first place? Bursaries are part of the charitable activity undertaken by the private schools because they are charities. Labour have said we don’t think you are charities you are businesses (despite no shareholders extracting dividends) and we are removing the benefits of being a charity. So why continue to act like a charity?Bursaries are not charitable per se. They are only offered to 'gifted' children. Schools like these operate on 'prestige', so being really charitable and offering opportunities to any poor child is out of the question. Only those who can 'enhance' the schools academic standards are given a chance. Not all 'rich' kids are bright and so by not increasing the talent pool means there will be a drop in standards of their pupils. You talk anecdotally about parents you know who are affected by this issue. Well I can tell you about my son and his experiences and how far such schools will go to gain 'prestige". Our son was pursued by several private schools due to his sporting prowess. These were not the highest echelon of such schools but still charged comparative fees and prided themselves on "sporting excellence". Our son was an international schoolboy rugby player for England and was also selected to play for the Irish Exiles. Initially he was offered a 50% scholarship but we declined saying we weren't prepared to pay the remaining 18k. So the school immediately came back and said they could provide a 25% bursary. We said we weren't willing to pay the remaining 9k. So a couple of days later we got a call saying the school had reached out to the 'Old Boys' network and they agreed to pay the remaining fees. So he went and played for this school and for the first time, maybe 2nd, the finished top of the Public Schools Rugby league. Now this is not the reason I'm saying I believe bursaries and scholarships won't be lost but it's how they put this team together. They had three Chilians, three Australians, a Samoan and one lad from Canada. All these kids 'scouted' and 'assisted' to attend this school. Now if schools like this are prepared to do this for 'sporting prestige' I'm positive they do this for the same reason academically. Prestige matters to these schools a great deal. So all that aside I think it will affect the smaller independant schools much more. Those that exist to teach pupils along the lines of what the parents want them taught, faith schools for example. The traditional boarding schools will not see much change. Mrs x First of all that is amazing and you must be very proud. Second if you read what I have been saying then you will see we are in agreement. I said the big name schools and boarding schools (with foreign students) won’t be impacted. But the private school sector will contract and they won’t continue to offer bursaries funded by parents who are now being penalised with an additional 20% on top of their full fees.I did say smaller schools will be affected. But the Eton thing is a little bit of a 'click bait' thing here on this thread. The fees quoted firstly are for boarders, it's not the rate for day students which I suspect is significantly lower. This will be the case for these schools that don't have boarders and only have day students. But it's still a big hike in fees. Don't get me wrong I empathise with those who will be genuinely affected by these rises. But like everything in life choices have to be made, you have to prioritise what you think is the most important. It calls for difficult decisions to be made. Mrs x" Yep Eton is indeed a red rag and I am actually shocked they are passing on full 20%. However, my posts have been talking about the sector as a whole. Let’s bookmark this discussion because I truly believe this will not create a net benefit to taxpayers or the exchequer. The impact will be felt by end of this parliament. | |||
"What I believe is lost in this discussion is the structure and costs of private education. It seems people tend to have a preconceived idea of what the private sector costs, how it functions and the types of people who send their children to be privately educated. And maybe that is how it should be worded, instead of private school we discuss private education, the cost of education to a child outside of state education. A lower end cost of 20K - 30k a year to educate your child, it is in reach of many and many more with prudent personal spending. This should be encouraged not hindered, it reduces the strain on schools that have high classroom numbers and facilities that can't cope. So why would the government risk moving those lower end struggling families into a position that they now can no longer afford to educate their children privately, and have them move into already over subscribed state schools? The pay back in terms of ££'s is not significant enough to put even more strain on a weak state education system I would argue. However it looks left wing, so ticked a few boxes pre-election "Low end struggling families" don't generally have 20K - 30k per kid, per year, knocking about in their bank account. It helps to read it in context.. the low end private education fees, that people will now struggle to pay. There will be a thing strata of those who are on the line of being able to afford private education for their kids yes. Should government policy be catering to this specific group?" There will be no net benefit ming term. The policy is flawed and punitive. I have already said how they could have approached this to make private school more accessible. | |||
"The private school sector will contract (the big names and boarding schools will be fine). Those counties that still have selective Grammar Schools will start to see an influx of wealthier people into their catchment areas. These people will use their wealth to push up house prices creating middle class enclaves pricing out the poor. They will also buy lots of additional private tutoring so their child can ace the entrance exams pushing out talented poor kids who cannot afford the extra help. I fear you are spot on with this assessment. It won't be shown like that in the future though I suspect. The government will just point to the extra money raised through VAT as they will have hard figures. They will not mention all those that could have gone private and therefore save the country money, but can no longer as the bursaries have disappeared. The extra cost to the state system will just be lost in the overall figures. In trying to get headlines of targeting the rich they have hit everyone elseSo you are suggesting there will be places not taken up in these private schools and these students not able to afford to go will enter the state system, which will then put pressure on the state system and therefore cost the tax payer more, is that a correct reading of the situation people are putting forward here? Mrs x The suggestion is a pretty simple one, that there will be parents who can not afford the increased fees and will send their kids to state schools instead, increasing the cost to the taxpayer. This is not scaremongering, that’s have been surveys, articles etc on this very subject. I know this os anecdotal but I have first hand experience here… At one of the private schools near me we know quite a few parents. Within this group there are some who are wealthy and whole annoyed will just absorb the VAT increase. There are some who can just about afford but the increase will seriously challenge that ability. They are already planning ahead for Sept 25 for a move as won’t disrupt school year 24/25. There are some who are low income families in receipt of bursaries. One is 80% the other 30%. In both cases the VAT rise on the proportion of fees they still have to pay is very worrying and they are unsure how they will do it. When bursaries are removed, which inevitably will happen down the line, their child(ren) will have to leave. All of those kids are saving taxpayers £8k per year in unused state school places. When they do move back into state over next 1-2yrs their places will need to be funded by taxpayers and there will also be the loss of VAT on the fees they would have paid if they stayed in private. There is also not a queue of kids waiting to take their places so ultimately this could see the school start to get into financial difficulty. They will first contract their offer and lay off staff (job losses) which will increase class sizes making them a less attractive offer to those parents who can still afford it. Eventually you could see the school folding. Bursaries will not be removed and those pupils receiving them are exempt from the introdiction of VAT. So as I asked before, how were these parents and similar able to absorb the much higher costs of sending their kids to school considering the huge rise in costs in fees since 2003, over 55%. And why has the number of pupils stayed the same, with little to no impact of such increases in fees for the last 20 years? Mrs x 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Why are you confident bursaries won’t disappear? On what basis are they offered in the first place? Bursaries are part of the charitable activity undertaken by the private schools because they are charities. Labour have said we don’t think you are charities you are businesses (despite no shareholders extracting dividends) and we are removing the benefits of being a charity. So why continue to act like a charity?Bursaries are not charitable per se. They are only offered to 'gifted' children. Schools like these operate on 'prestige', so being really charitable and offering opportunities to any poor child is out of the question. Only those who can 'enhance' the schools academic standards are given a chance. Not all 'rich' kids are bright and so by not increasing the talent pool means there will be a drop in standards of their pupils. You talk anecdotally about parents you know who are affected by this issue. Well I can tell you about my son and his experiences and how far such schools will go to gain 'prestige". Our son was pursued by several private schools due to his sporting prowess. These were not the highest echelon of such schools but still charged comparative fees and prided themselves on "sporting excellence". Our son was an international schoolboy rugby player for England and was also selected to play for the Irish Exiles. Initially he was offered a 50% scholarship but we declined saying we weren't prepared to pay the remaining 18k. So the school immediately came back and said they could provide a 25% bursary. We said we weren't willing to pay the remaining 9k. So a couple of days later we got a call saying the school had reached out to the 'Old Boys' network and they agreed to pay the remaining fees. So he went and played for this school and for the first time, maybe 2nd, the finished top of the Public Schools Rugby league. Now this is not the reason I'm saying I believe bursaries and scholarships won't be lost but it's how they put this team together. They had three Chilians, three Australians, a Samoan and one lad from Canada. All these kids 'scouted' and 'assisted' to attend this school. Now if schools like this are prepared to do this for 'sporting prestige' I'm positive they do this for the same reason academically. Prestige matters to these schools a great deal. So all that aside I think it will affect the smaller independant schools much more. Those that exist to teach pupils along the lines of what the parents want them taught, faith schools for example. The traditional boarding schools will not see much change. Mrs x First of all that is amazing and you must be very proud. Second if you read what I have been saying then you will see we are in agreement. I said the big name schools and boarding schools (with foreign students) won’t be impacted. But the private school sector will contract and they won’t continue to offer bursaries funded by parents who are now being penalised with an additional 20% on top of their full fees.I did say smaller schools will be affected. But the Eton thing is a little bit of a 'click bait' thing here on this thread. The fees quoted firstly are for boarders, it's not the rate for day students which I suspect is significantly lower. This will be the case for these schools that don't have boarders and only have day students. But it's still a big hike in fees. Don't get me wrong I empathise with those who will be genuinely affected by these rises. But like everything in life choices have to be made, you have to prioritise what you think is the most important. It calls for difficult decisions to be made. Mrs x Yep Eton is indeed a red rag and I am actually shocked they are passing on full 20%. However, my posts have been talking about the sector as a whole. Let’s bookmark this discussion because I truly believe this will not create a net benefit to taxpayers or the exchequer. The impact will be felt by end of this parliament." It's been costed to raise about 1.5 billion. If that's spent wisely it may help kids in the state system. It's money that wasn't there before, from all those bloody tax dodging parents.... I'm only messing with you
Mrs x | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice.I understand how you feel but there will be millions that don't.
They will say, you are part of a privileged few that have had tax breaks for years and now you are paying what is due.
This will be from parents, who have maybe more than two kids, who earn very little and have found themselves hundreds of pounds worse off because their means tested benefit was changed. Poor people made actually poorer by the system. The same system that allowed you to send your child to school because the system said you didn't need to pay VAT on the fees. The same VAT these poor parents have to pay on everything they buy. They could argue the revenue clawed back from them, because they had three children has been diverted to other parents to enable them to avoid paying VAT on school fees.
I'm not saying this but as I empathise for those parents who want to give their kids opportunities I can also empathise with poorer parents too.
Mrs x"Of course that argument will be made but it continues to ignore the uncomfortable fact tgat every kid in private school saves taxpayers and the exchequer £8k per year. With avg pvt sch fees being c.£18k per year that only equals £3,600 in VAT receipts. The Labour quoted £1.6bn a year won’t materialise long term as the pvt sector contracts, more kids move back into state, and the now no longer VAT exempt schools start reclaiming VAT on purchases they previously couldn’t. | |||
"The private school sector will contract (the big names and boarding schools will be fine). Those counties that still have selective Grammar Schools will start to see an influx of wealthier people into their catchment areas. These people will use their wealth to push up house prices creating middle class enclaves pricing out the poor. They will also buy lots of additional private tutoring so their child can ace the entrance exams pushing out talented poor kids who cannot afford the extra help. I fear you are spot on with this assessment. It won't be shown like that in the future though I suspect. The government will just point to the extra money raised through VAT as they will have hard figures. They will not mention all those that could have gone private and therefore save the country money, but can no longer as the bursaries have disappeared. The extra cost to the state system will just be lost in the overall figures. In trying to get headlines of targeting the rich they have hit everyone elseSo you are suggesting there will be places not taken up in these private schools and these students not able to afford to go will enter the state system, which will then put pressure on the state system and therefore cost the tax payer more, is that a correct reading of the situation people are putting forward here? Mrs x The suggestion is a pretty simple one, that there will be parents who can not afford the increased fees and will send their kids to state schools instead, increasing the cost to the taxpayer. This is not scaremongering, that’s have been surveys, articles etc on this very subject. I know this os anecdotal but I have first hand experience here… At one of the private schools near me we know quite a few parents. Within this group there are some who are wealthy and whole annoyed will just absorb the VAT increase. There are some who can just about afford but the increase will seriously challenge that ability. They are already planning ahead for Sept 25 for a move as won’t disrupt school year 24/25. There are some who are low income families in receipt of bursaries. One is 80% the other 30%. In both cases the VAT rise on the proportion of fees they still have to pay is very worrying and they are unsure how they will do it. When bursaries are removed, which inevitably will happen down the line, their child(ren) will have to leave. All of those kids are saving taxpayers £8k per year in unused state school places. When they do move back into state over next 1-2yrs their places will need to be funded by taxpayers and there will also be the loss of VAT on the fees they would have paid if they stayed in private. There is also not a queue of kids waiting to take their places so ultimately this could see the school start to get into financial difficulty. They will first contract their offer and lay off staff (job losses) which will increase class sizes making them a less attractive offer to those parents who can still afford it. Eventually you could see the school folding. Bursaries will not be removed and those pupils receiving them are exempt from the introdiction of VAT. So as I asked before, how were these parents and similar able to absorb the much higher costs of sending their kids to school considering the huge rise in costs in fees since 2003, over 55%. And why has the number of pupils stayed the same, with little to no impact of such increases in fees for the last 20 years? Mrs x 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Why are you confident bursaries won’t disappear? On what basis are they offered in the first place? Bursaries are part of the charitable activity undertaken by the private schools because they are charities. Labour have said we don’t think you are charities you are businesses (despite no shareholders extracting dividends) and we are removing the benefits of being a charity. So why continue to act like a charity?Bursaries are not charitable per se. They are only offered to 'gifted' children. Schools like these operate on 'prestige', so being really charitable and offering opportunities to any poor child is out of the question. Only those who can 'enhance' the schools academic standards are given a chance. Not all 'rich' kids are bright and so by not increasing the talent pool means there will be a drop in standards of their pupils. You talk anecdotally about parents you know who are affected by this issue. Well I can tell you about my son and his experiences and how far such schools will go to gain 'prestige". Our son was pursued by several private schools due to his sporting prowess. These were not the highest echelon of such schools but still charged comparative fees and prided themselves on "sporting excellence". Our son was an international schoolboy rugby player for England and was also selected to play for the Irish Exiles. Initially he was offered a 50% scholarship but we declined saying we weren't prepared to pay the remaining 18k. So the school immediately came back and said they could provide a 25% bursary. We said we weren't willing to pay the remaining 9k. So a couple of days later we got a call saying the school had reached out to the 'Old Boys' network and they agreed to pay the remaining fees. So he went and played for this school and for the first time, maybe 2nd, the finished top of the Public Schools Rugby league. Now this is not the reason I'm saying I believe bursaries and scholarships won't be lost but it's how they put this team together. They had three Chilians, three Australians, a Samoan and one lad from Canada. All these kids 'scouted' and 'assisted' to attend this school. Now if schools like this are prepared to do this for 'sporting prestige' I'm positive they do this for the same reason academically. Prestige matters to these schools a great deal. So all that aside I think it will affect the smaller independant schools much more. Those that exist to teach pupils along the lines of what the parents want them taught, faith schools for example. The traditional boarding schools will not see much change. Mrs x First of all that is amazing and you must be very proud. Second if you read what I have been saying then you will see we are in agreement. I said the big name schools and boarding schools (with foreign students) won’t be impacted. But the private school sector will contract and they won’t continue to offer bursaries funded by parents who are now being penalised with an additional 20% on top of their full fees.I did say smaller schools will be affected. But the Eton thing is a little bit of a 'click bait' thing here on this thread. The fees quoted firstly are for boarders, it's not the rate for day students which I suspect is significantly lower. This will be the case for these schools that don't have boarders and only have day students. But it's still a big hike in fees. Don't get me wrong I empathise with those who will be genuinely affected by these rises. But like everything in life choices have to be made, you have to prioritise what you think is the most important. It calls for difficult decisions to be made. Mrs x Yep Eton is indeed a red rag and I am actually shocked they are passing on full 20%. However, my posts have been talking about the sector as a whole. Let’s bookmark this discussion because I truly believe this will not create a net benefit to taxpayers or the exchequer. The impact will be felt by end of this parliament.It's been costed to raise about 1.5 billion. If that's spent wisely it may help kids in the state system. It's money that wasn't there before, from all those bloody tax dodging parents.... I'm only messing with you
Mrs x"My next post tackled the £1.5bn. The methodology is flawed and has been challenged but Labour eon’t address it. This will end up cost neutral at best. A pointless exercise from a revenue raising POV. | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice.I understand how you feel but there will be millions that don't.
They will say, you are part of a privileged few that have had tax breaks for years and now you are paying what is due.
This will be from parents, who have maybe more than two kids, who earn very little and have found themselves hundreds of pounds worse off because their means tested benefit was changed. Poor people made actually poorer by the system. The same system that allowed you to send your child to school because the system said you didn't need to pay VAT on the fees. The same VAT these poor parents have to pay on everything they buy. They could argue the revenue clawed back from them, because they had three children has been diverted to other parents to enable them to avoid paying VAT on school fees.
I'm not saying this but as I empathise for those parents who want to give their kids opportunities I can also empathise with poorer parents too.
Mrs x
Of course that argument will be made but it continues to ignore the uncomfortable fact tgat every kid in private school saves taxpayers and the exchequer £8k per year. With avg pvt sch fees being c.£18k per year that only equals £3,600 in VAT receipts.
The Labour quoted £1.6bn a year won’t materialise long term as the pvt sector contracts, more kids move back into state, and the now no longer VAT exempt schools start reclaiming VAT on purchases they previously couldn’t."Add in the impact of classroom sizes and facilities, everyone is worse off. | |||
"The private school sector will contract (the big names and boarding schools will be fine). Those counties that still have selective Grammar Schools will start to see an influx of wealthier people into their catchment areas. These people will use their wealth to push up house prices creating middle class enclaves pricing out the poor. They will also buy lots of additional private tutoring so their child can ace the entrance exams pushing out talented poor kids who cannot afford the extra help. I fear you are spot on with this assessment. It won't be shown like that in the future though I suspect. The government will just point to the extra money raised through VAT as they will have hard figures. They will not mention all those that could have gone private and therefore save the country money, but can no longer as the bursaries have disappeared. The extra cost to the state system will just be lost in the overall figures. In trying to get headlines of targeting the rich they have hit everyone elseSo you are suggesting there will be places not taken up in these private schools and these students not able to afford to go will enter the state system, which will then put pressure on the state system and therefore cost the tax payer more, is that a correct reading of the situation people are putting forward here? Mrs x The suggestion is a pretty simple one, that there will be parents who can not afford the increased fees and will send their kids to state schools instead, increasing the cost to the taxpayer. This is not scaremongering, that’s have been surveys, articles etc on this very subject. I know this os anecdotal but I have first hand experience here… At one of the private schools near me we know quite a few parents. Within this group there are some who are wealthy and whole annoyed will just absorb the VAT increase. There are some who can just about afford but the increase will seriously challenge that ability. They are already planning ahead for Sept 25 for a move as won’t disrupt school year 24/25. There are some who are low income families in receipt of bursaries. One is 80% the other 30%. In both cases the VAT rise on the proportion of fees they still have to pay is very worrying and they are unsure how they will do it. When bursaries are removed, which inevitably will happen down the line, their child(ren) will have to leave. All of those kids are saving taxpayers £8k per year in unused state school places. When they do move back into state over next 1-2yrs their places will need to be funded by taxpayers and there will also be the loss of VAT on the fees they would have paid if they stayed in private. There is also not a queue of kids waiting to take their places so ultimately this could see the school start to get into financial difficulty. They will first contract their offer and lay off staff (job losses) which will increase class sizes making them a less attractive offer to those parents who can still afford it. Eventually you could see the school folding. Bursaries will not be removed and those pupils receiving them are exempt from the introdiction of VAT. So as I asked before, how were these parents and similar able to absorb the much higher costs of sending their kids to school considering the huge rise in costs in fees since 2003, over 55%. And why has the number of pupils stayed the same, with little to no impact of such increases in fees for the last 20 years? Mrs x 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Why are you confident bursaries won’t disappear? On what basis are they offered in the first place? Bursaries are part of the charitable activity undertaken by the private schools because they are charities. Labour have said we don’t think you are charities you are businesses (despite no shareholders extracting dividends) and we are removing the benefits of being a charity. So why continue to act like a charity?Bursaries are not charitable per se. They are only offered to 'gifted' children. Schools like these operate on 'prestige', so being really charitable and offering opportunities to any poor child is out of the question. Only those who can 'enhance' the schools academic standards are given a chance. Not all 'rich' kids are bright and so by not increasing the talent pool means there will be a drop in standards of their pupils. You talk anecdotally about parents you know who are affected by this issue. Well I can tell you about my son and his experiences and how far such schools will go to gain 'prestige". Our son was pursued by several private schools due to his sporting prowess. These were not the highest echelon of such schools but still charged comparative fees and prided themselves on "sporting excellence". Our son was an international schoolboy rugby player for England and was also selected to play for the Irish Exiles. Initially he was offered a 50% scholarship but we declined saying we weren't prepared to pay the remaining 18k. So the school immediately came back and said they could provide a 25% bursary. We said we weren't willing to pay the remaining 9k. So a couple of days later we got a call saying the school had reached out to the 'Old Boys' network and they agreed to pay the remaining fees. So he went and played for this school and for the first time, maybe 2nd, the finished top of the Public Schools Rugby league. Now this is not the reason I'm saying I believe bursaries and scholarships won't be lost but it's how they put this team together. They had three Chilians, three Australians, a Samoan and one lad from Canada. All these kids 'scouted' and 'assisted' to attend this school. Now if schools like this are prepared to do this for 'sporting prestige' I'm positive they do this for the same reason academically. Prestige matters to these schools a great deal. So all that aside I think it will affect the smaller independant schools much more. Those that exist to teach pupils along the lines of what the parents want them taught, faith schools for example. The traditional boarding schools will not see much change. Mrs x First of all that is amazing and you must be very proud. Second if you read what I have been saying then you will see we are in agreement. I said the big name schools and boarding schools (with foreign students) won’t be impacted. But the private school sector will contract and they won’t continue to offer bursaries funded by parents who are now being penalised with an additional 20% on top of their full fees.I did say smaller schools will be affected. But the Eton thing is a little bit of a 'click bait' thing here on this thread. The fees quoted firstly are for boarders, it's not the rate for day students which I suspect is significantly lower. This will be the case for these schools that don't have boarders and only have day students. But it's still a big hike in fees. Don't get me wrong I empathise with those who will be genuinely affected by these rises. But like everything in life choices have to be made, you have to prioritise what you think is the most important. It calls for difficult decisions to be made. Mrs x Yep Eton is indeed a red rag and I am actually shocked they are passing on full 20%. However, my posts have been talking about the sector as a whole. Let’s bookmark this discussion because I truly believe this will not create a net benefit to taxpayers or the exchequer. The impact will be felt by end of this parliament.It's been costed to raise about 1.5 billion. If that's spent wisely it may help kids in the state system. It's money that wasn't there before, from all those bloody tax dodging parents.... I'm only messing with you
Mrs x
My next post tackled the £1.5bn. The methodology is flawed and has been challenged but Labour eon’t address it. This will end up cost neutral at best. A pointless exercise from a revenue raising POV."And yet the IFS and academic reports have said it should work, explaining their findings in in detail. Did you read what I said about the millions who will agree with the removal of the VAT tax break and their possible reasoning behind this? What did you think about what I said? Mrs x | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice.I understand how you feel but there will be millions that don't.
They will say, you are part of a privileged few that have had tax breaks for years and now you are paying what is due.
This will be from parents, who have maybe more than two kids, who earn very little and have found themselves hundreds of pounds worse off because their means tested benefit was changed. Poor people made actually poorer by the system. The same system that allowed you to send your child to school because the system said you didn't need to pay VAT on the fees. The same VAT these poor parents have to pay on everything they buy. They could argue the revenue clawed back from them, because they had three children has been diverted to other parents to enable them to avoid paying VAT on school fees.
I'm not saying this but as I empathise for those parents who want to give their kids opportunities I can also empathise with poorer parents too.
Mrs x
Of course that argument will be made but it continues to ignore the uncomfortable fact tgat every kid in private school saves taxpayers and the exchequer £8k per year. With avg pvt sch fees being c.£18k per year that only equals £3,600 in VAT receipts.
The Labour quoted £1.6bn a year won’t materialise long term as the pvt sector contracts, more kids move back into state, and the now no longer VAT exempt schools start reclaiming VAT on purchases they previously couldn’t.
Add in the impact of classroom sizes and facilities, everyone is worse off."That's just your opinion unless you can point to any actual evidence of this, Mrs x | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice.
Lol, put your kids through private education, even though state education did you well.
Think about what you wrote.
You deserve to pay VAT. "Parent who wants the best for his children and works hard to achieve that goal is vilified for his aspirations. Fab needs a chips emoji.  | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice.I understand how you feel but there will be millions that don't.
They will say, you are part of a privileged few that have had tax breaks for years and now you are paying what is due.
This will be from parents, who have maybe more than two kids, who earn very little and have found themselves hundreds of pounds worse off because their means tested benefit was changed. Poor people made actually poorer by the system. The same system that allowed you to send your child to school because the system said you didn't need to pay VAT on the fees. The same VAT these poor parents have to pay on everything they buy. They could argue the revenue clawed back from them, because they had three children has been diverted to other parents to enable them to avoid paying VAT on school fees.
I'm not saying this but as I empathise for those parents who want to give their kids opportunities I can also empathise with poorer parents too.
Mrs x
Of course that argument will be made but it continues to ignore the uncomfortable fact tgat every kid in private school saves taxpayers and the exchequer £8k per year. With avg pvt sch fees being c.£18k per year that only equals £3,600 in VAT receipts.
The Labour quoted £1.6bn a year won’t materialise long term as the pvt sector contracts, more kids move back into state, and the now no longer VAT exempt schools start reclaiming VAT on purchases they previously couldn’t.
Add in the impact of classroom sizes and facilities, everyone is worse off.That's just your opinion unless you can point to any actual evidence of this,
Mrs x"Just to come in on this one. In some parts of the country we are seeing a reduction in the number of kids (we are over the hump of the 2010s baby boom and it might possibly be also affected by Brexit seeing many EU families leave the UK?) The state school funding formula is based on number of kids attending a school. Numbers drop the school receives less. Labour are pointing at this saying “see we can absorb kids leaving private school” except this is not uniform across all regions. Edinburgh in particular is facing a problem as is any area with a large concentration of private schools (I suspected Brighton is another). Again, each child leaving private school will no longer contribute £3,600 a year to exchequer and will require £8,000 annual funding. You know the IFS did not interview a single parent. There was no qualitative research only historical number crunching and quantitative assumptions. | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice.I understand how you feel but there will be millions that don't.
They will say, you are part of a privileged few that have had tax breaks for years and now you are paying what is due.
This will be from parents, who have maybe more than two kids, who earn very little and have found themselves hundreds of pounds worse off because their means tested benefit was changed. Poor people made actually poorer by the system. The same system that allowed you to send your child to school because the system said you didn't need to pay VAT on the fees. The same VAT these poor parents have to pay on everything they buy. They could argue the revenue clawed back from them, because they had three children has been diverted to other parents to enable them to avoid paying VAT on school fees.
I'm not saying this but as I empathise for those parents who want to give their kids opportunities I can also empathise with poorer parents too.
Mrs x
Of course that argument will be made but it continues to ignore the uncomfortable fact tgat every kid in private school saves taxpayers and the exchequer £8k per year. With avg pvt sch fees being c.£18k per year that only equals £3,600 in VAT receipts.
The Labour quoted £1.6bn a year won’t materialise long term as the pvt sector contracts, more kids move back into state, and the now no longer VAT exempt schools start reclaiming VAT on purchases they previously couldn’t.
Add in the impact of classroom sizes and facilities, everyone is worse off.That's just your opinion unless you can point to any actual evidence of this,
Mrs x"It is my opinion and I would be confident that more children than previously expected entering state education would put a strain on an already creaking infrastructure in many parts of the country. Do you think there is room and facilities to house more than expected? | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice.
Lol, put your kids through private education, even though state education did you well.
Think about what you wrote.
You deserve to pay VAT.
Parent who wants the best for his children and works hard to achieve that goal is vilified for his aspirations.
Fab needs a chips emoji. "They made a ridiculous statement. A typical vacuous surface level point devoid of actually understanding the detail involved. It proves that this policy is punitive and populist. If it wasn’t my kids future I’d be messing with (ie disruption) I’d stick back into state and let all of you pay for their education, but I won’t let them be part of a social experiment. | |||
" They will say, you are part of a privileged few that have had tax breaks for years and now you are paying what is due. This will be from parents, who have maybe more than two kids, who earn very little and have found themselves hundreds of pounds worse off because their means tested benefit was changed. Poor people made actually poorer by the system. The same system that allowed you to send your child to school because the system said you didn't need to pay VAT on the fees. The same VAT these poor parents have to pay on everything they buy. They could argue the revenue clawed back from them, because they had three children has been diverted to other parents to enable them to avoid paying VAT on school fees." 1. Until now the provision of education in the UK was exempt from VAT. 2. Most private schools are charities with no shareholders or dividends and all money being retained by the organisation to provide the “objects” of the charity, namely provide education. The Charities Commission assess each one and agree/permit them to be charities. 3. Charities are exempt from VAT. 4. I would point out that having a child in private school actually saves taxpayers £8k per year. The parent is already helping to ease pressure on govt budgets. It is not a “tax break” it is an established structure that until now has been consistently applied. To link the education of kids to the wider problems in society is disingenuous. How govt chooses to portion up budget is within their gift and they could divert more towards education if they chose to. I have said what I think a fairer approach would have been re charitable threshold. A question back to you… is it right to introduce this change to VAT in January in the middle of a school year? If so why? | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice.
Lol, put your kids through private education, even though state education did you well.
Think about what you wrote.
You deserve to pay VAT.
Why? I already save taxpayers £8000 per year per kid. I could put them back jnto state costing you money but I won’t. Because I am wealthy enough to absorb it. However, I have friends who can’t."Why, because that's the cost. The price plus vat. It's not a charity private education. Have a nice life. | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice.I understand how you feel but there will be millions that don't.
They will say, you are part of a privileged few that have had tax breaks for years and now you are paying what is due.
This will be from parents, who have maybe more than two kids, who earn very little and have found themselves hundreds of pounds worse off because their means tested benefit was changed. Poor people made actually poorer by the system. The same system that allowed you to send your child to school because the system said you didn't need to pay VAT on the fees. The same VAT these poor parents have to pay on everything they buy. They could argue the revenue clawed back from them, because they had three children has been diverted to other parents to enable them to avoid paying VAT on school fees.
I'm not saying this but as I empathise for those parents who want to give their kids opportunities I can also empathise with poorer parents too.
Mrs x
Of course that argument will be made but it continues to ignore the uncomfortable fact tgat every kid in private school saves taxpayers and the exchequer £8k per year. With avg pvt sch fees being c.£18k per year that only equals £3,600 in VAT receipts.
The Labour quoted £1.6bn a year won’t materialise long term as the pvt sector contracts, more kids move back into state, and the now no longer VAT exempt schools start reclaiming VAT on purchases they previously couldn’t.
Add in the impact of classroom sizes and facilities, everyone is worse off.That's just your opinion unless you can point to any actual evidence of this,
Mrs x
It is my opinion and I would be confident that more children than previously expected entering state education would put a strain on an already creaking infrastructure in many parts of the country.
Do you think there is room and facilities to house more than expected?"Birmingham touched on that above, yes it is predicted that there will be slack in the state system, numbers of pupils in the state system are expected to fall, nor in all areas but most. So yes they can absorb the numbers predicted. Mrs x | |||
" They will say, you are part of a privileged few that have had tax breaks for years and now you are paying what is due. This will be from parents, who have maybe more than two kids, who earn very little and have found themselves hundreds of pounds worse off because their means tested benefit was changed. Poor people made actually poorer by the system. The same system that allowed you to send your child to school because the system said you didn't need to pay VAT on the fees. The same VAT these poor parents have to pay on everything they buy. They could argue the revenue clawed back from them, because they had three children has been diverted to other parents to enable them to avoid paying VAT on school fees. 1. Until now the provision of education in the UK was exempt from VAT. 2. Most private schools are charities with no shareholders or dividends and all money being retained by the organisation to provide the “objects” of the charity, namely provide education. The Charities Commission assess each one and agree/permit them to be charities. 3. Charities are exempt from VAT. 4. I would point out that having a child in private school actually saves taxpayers £8k per year. The parent is already helping to ease pressure on govt budgets. It is not a “tax break” it is an established structure that until now has been consistently applied. To link the education of kids to the wider problems in society is disingenuous. How govt chooses to portion up budget is within their gift and they could divert more towards education if they chose to. I have said what I think a fairer approach would have been re charitable threshold. A question back to you… is it right to introduce this change to VAT in January in the middle of a school year? If so why? " Oh and I missed the key point back to those parents: 5. By having school fees exempt from VAT it means HMRC is not collecting a headline avg of £3,600 per year (although in reality that figure will be lower as schools will now be able to reclaim VAT on purchases) but that child being in pvt is not costing you anything unlike being in state where you will be contributing to the annual cost of £8k. | |||
" They will say, you are part of a privileged few that have had tax breaks for years and now you are paying what is due. This will be from parents, who have maybe more than two kids, who earn very little and have found themselves hundreds of pounds worse off because their means tested benefit was changed. Poor people made actually poorer by the system. The same system that allowed you to send your child to school because the system said you didn't need to pay VAT on the fees. The same VAT these poor parents have to pay on everything they buy. They could argue the revenue clawed back from them, because they had three children has been diverted to other parents to enable them to avoid paying VAT on school fees. 1. Until now the provision of education in the UK was exempt from VAT. 2. Most private schools are charities with no shareholders or dividends and all money being retained by the organisation to provide the “objects” of the charity, namely provide education. The Charities Commission assess each one and agree/permit them to be charities. 3. Charities are exempt from VAT. 4. I would point out that having a child in private school actually saves taxpayers £8k per year. The parent is already helping to ease pressure on govt budgets. It is not a “tax break” it is an established structure that until now has been consistently applied. To link the education of kids to the wider problems in society is disingenuous. How govt chooses to portion up budget is within their gift and they could divert more towards education if they chose to. I have said what I think a fairer approach would have been re charitable threshold. A question back to you… is it right to introduce this change to VAT in January in the middle of a school year? If so why? Oh and I missed the key point back to those parents: 5. By having school fees exempt from VAT it means HMRC is not collecting a headline avg of £3,600 per year (although in reality that figure will be lower as schools will now be able to reclaim VAT on purchases) but that child being in pvt is not costing you anything unlike being in state where you will be contributing to the annual cost of £8k." You do know it will cost you the best part of 90 grand to take a child through the English private education system. Add Uni fees down there and your a boot in the arse of 150K on education. You'd be better sending them to a state school and handing them.a cheque when they leave. | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice.
Lol, put your kids through private education, even though state education did you well.
Think about what you wrote.
You deserve to pay VAT.
Why? I already save taxpayers £8000 per year per kid. I could put them back jnto state costing you money but I won’t. Because I am wealthy enough to absorb it. However, I have friends who can’t.
Why, because that's the cost. The price plus vat. It's not a charity private education.
Have a nice life."An empty response I see. Labour PR has done its trick on you. Clearly the only thing YOU want is wealthy people paying more tax rather than what sits behind this particular issue. I will have a nice life thanks. I already do. I make no apology for being well off, I worked for it. For me personally this changes little. But as per various posts above, I have friends and their kids who are going to be impacted by this and I think it is wrong. | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice.I understand how you feel but there will be millions that don't.
They will say, you are part of a privileged few that have had tax breaks for years and now you are paying what is due.
This will be from parents, who have maybe more than two kids, who earn very little and have found themselves hundreds of pounds worse off because their means tested benefit was changed. Poor people made actually poorer by the system. The same system that allowed you to send your child to school because the system said you didn't need to pay VAT on the fees. The same VAT these poor parents have to pay on everything they buy. They could argue the revenue clawed back from them, because they had three children has been diverted to other parents to enable them to avoid paying VAT on school fees.
I'm not saying this but as I empathise for those parents who want to give their kids opportunities I can also empathise with poorer parents too.
Mrs x
Of course that argument will be made but it continues to ignore the uncomfortable fact tgat every kid in private school saves taxpayers and the exchequer £8k per year. With avg pvt sch fees being c.£18k per year that only equals £3,600 in VAT receipts.
The Labour quoted £1.6bn a year won’t materialise long term as the pvt sector contracts, more kids move back into state, and the now no longer VAT exempt schools start reclaiming VAT on purchases they previously couldn’t.
Add in the impact of classroom sizes and facilities, everyone is worse off.That's just your opinion unless you can point to any actual evidence of this,
Mrs x
It is my opinion and I would be confident that more children than previously expected entering state education would put a strain on an already creaking infrastructure in many parts of the country.
Do you think there is room and facilities to house more than expected?Birmingham touched on that above, yes it is predicted that there will be slack in the state system, numbers of pupils in the state system are expected to fall, nor in all areas but most. So yes they can absorb the numbers predicted. Mrs x"Birmingham lol… no they cannot absorb in all areas. It is goinb to be very difficult in some areas. And as covered already, the knock on effect will be catchment area house price inflation further impacting poor people! | |||
" They will say, you are part of a privileged few that have had tax breaks for years and now you are paying what is due. This will be from parents, who have maybe more than two kids, who earn very little and have found themselves hundreds of pounds worse off because their means tested benefit was changed. Poor people made actually poorer by the system. The same system that allowed you to send your child to school because the system said you didn't need to pay VAT on the fees. The same VAT these poor parents have to pay on everything they buy. They could argue the revenue clawed back from them, because they had three children has been diverted to other parents to enable them to avoid paying VAT on school fees. 1. Until now the provision of education in the UK was exempt from VAT. 2. Most private schools are charities with no shareholders or dividends and all money being retained by the organisation to provide the “objects” of the charity, namely provide education. The Charities Commission assess each one and agree/permit them to be charities. 3. Charities are exempt from VAT. 4. I would point out that having a child in private school actually saves taxpayers £8k per year. The parent is already helping to ease pressure on govt budgets. It is not a “tax break” it is an established structure that until now has been consistently applied. To link the education of kids to the wider problems in society is disingenuous. How govt chooses to portion up budget is within their gift and they could divert more towards education if they chose to. I have said what I think a fairer approach would have been re charitable threshold. A question back to you… is it right to introduce this change to VAT in January in the middle of a school year? If so why? Oh and I missed the key point back to those parents: 5. By having school fees exempt from VAT it means HMRC is not collecting a headline avg of £3,600 per year (although in reality that figure will be lower as schools will now be able to reclaim VAT on purchases) but that child being in pvt is not costing you anything unlike being in state where you will be contributing to the annual cost of £8k. You do know it will cost you the best part of 90 grand to take a child through the English private education system. Add Uni fees down there and your a boot in the arse of 150K on education. You'd be better sending them to a state school and handing them.a cheque when they leave." More than that actually. | |||
" They will say, you are part of a privileged few that have had tax breaks for years and now you are paying what is due. This will be from parents, who have maybe more than two kids, who earn very little and have found themselves hundreds of pounds worse off because their means tested benefit was changed. Poor people made actually poorer by the system. The same system that allowed you to send your child to school because the system said you didn't need to pay VAT on the fees. The same VAT these poor parents have to pay on everything they buy. They could argue the revenue clawed back from them, because they had three children has been diverted to other parents to enable them to avoid paying VAT on school fees. 1. Until now the provision of education in the UK was exempt from VAT. 2. Most private schools are charities with no shareholders or dividends and all money being retained by the organisation to provide the “objects” of the charity, namely provide education. The Charities Commission assess each one and agree/permit them to be charities. 3. Charities are exempt from VAT. 4. I would point out that having a child in private school actually saves taxpayers £8k per year. The parent is already helping to ease pressure on govt budgets. It is not a “tax break” it is an established structure that until now has been consistently applied. To link the education of kids to the wider problems in society is disingenuous. How govt chooses to portion up budget is within their gift and they could divert more towards education if they chose to. I have said what I think a fairer approach would have been re charitable threshold. A question back to you… is it right to introduce this change to VAT in January in the middle of a school year? If so why? Oh and I missed the key point back to those parents: 5. By having school fees exempt from VAT it means HMRC is not collecting a headline avg of £3,600 per year (although in reality that figure will be lower as schools will now be able to reclaim VAT on purchases) but that child being in pvt is not costing you anything unlike being in state where you will be contributing to the annual cost of £8k." You keep using this 8k figure as a saving to the taxpayer but that not accurate. That figure is what it costs the state now to educate children, all 9.1 million of them. So of the 615,000 kids in the private sector, if say 25% had to be absorbed and that's quoting from the worst estimate I've read. That's 154,000 kids. So the savings you talk about is not 8k, it's the cost used to get 9.25 million kids educated. So the extra is only counted in pounds, that's what you are saving the tax payer. As for why they are doing this in January I have no idea, I would think it's more sensible at the start of the school year and if not then the start of the financial year. You stated earlier that the IFS report didn't add for parents opinions, why is that pertinent? Mrs x | |||
| |||
" I'm not being disingenuous I'm just point out what others could be saying and you are ccorrect when you say... 'How govt chooses to portion up budget is within their gift'. But isn't that what they are doing here but instead of following your own advice, you are doing the 'human thing' and moaning about something because it's impacting on you negatively. That's all the others may be doing when they see money taken of them for just having more than two children, yet a tiny proportion of the nation could avoid paying tax to educate their children a certain way. I think it's fair of them to point out inequity within the system. But that's not necessarily my opinion. Mrs x " | |||
" They will say, you are part of a privileged few that have had tax breaks for years and now you are paying what is due. This will be from parents, who have maybe more than two kids, who earn very little and have found themselves hundreds of pounds worse off because their means tested benefit was changed. Poor people made actually poorer by the system. The same system that allowed you to send your child to school because the system said you didn't need to pay VAT on the fees. The same VAT these poor parents have to pay on everything they buy. They could argue the revenue clawed back from them, because they had three children has been diverted to other parents to enable them to avoid paying VAT on school fees. 1. Until now the provision of education in the UK was exempt from VAT. 2. Most private schools are charities with no shareholders or dividends and all money being retained by the organisation to provide the “objects” of the charity, namely provide education. The Charities Commission assess each one and agree/permit them to be charities. 3. Charities are exempt from VAT. 4. I would point out that having a child in private school actually saves taxpayers £8k per year. The parent is already helping to ease pressure on govt budgets. It is not a “tax break” it is an established structure that until now has been consistently applied. To link the education of kids to the wider problems in society is disingenuous. How govt chooses to portion up budget is within their gift and they could divert more towards education if they chose to. I have said what I think a fairer approach would have been re charitable threshold. A question back to you… is it right to introduce this change to VAT in January in the middle of a school year? If so why? Oh and I missed the key point back to those parents: 5. By having school fees exempt from VAT it means HMRC is not collecting a headline avg of £3,600 per year (although in reality that figure will be lower as schools will now be able to reclaim VAT on purchases) but that child being in pvt is not costing you anything unlike being in state where you will be contributing to the annual cost of £8k.You keep using this 8k figure as a saving to the taxpayer but that not accurate. That figure is what it costs the state now to educate children, all 9.1 million of them. So of the 615,000 kids in the private sector, if say 25% had to be absorbed and that's quoting from the worst estimate I've read. That's 154,000 kids. So the savings you talk about is not 8k, it's the cost used to get 9.25 million kids educated. So the extra is only counted in pounds, that's what you are saving the tax payer. As for why they are doing this in January I have no idea, I would think it's more sensible at the start of the school year and if not then the start of the financial year. You stated earlier that the IFS report didn't add for parents opinions, why is that pertinent? Mrs x" I’m not sure I follow. The £8k figure is the cost per pupil in the state system. I’ve not looked but assume number of pupils divided by total education budget (although it may vary according to pupil age and school year so expect that is the average). The more pupils you have the more the budget needs to grow to cover their provision OR the total per each pupil needs to reduce. | |||
" They will say, you are part of a privileged few that have had tax breaks for years and now you are paying what is due. This will be from parents, who have maybe more than two kids, who earn very little and have found themselves hundreds of pounds worse off because their means tested benefit was changed. Poor people made actually poorer by the system. The same system that allowed you to send your child to school because the system said you didn't need to pay VAT on the fees. The same VAT these poor parents have to pay on everything they buy. They could argue the revenue clawed back from them, because they had three children has been diverted to other parents to enable them to avoid paying VAT on school fees. 1. Until now the provision of education in the UK was exempt from VAT. 2. Most private schools are charities with no shareholders or dividends and all money being retained by the organisation to provide the “objects” of the charity, namely provide education. The Charities Commission assess each one and agree/permit them to be charities. 3. Charities are exempt from VAT. 4. I would point out that having a child in private school actually saves taxpayers £8k per year. The parent is already helping to ease pressure on govt budgets. It is not a “tax break” it is an established structure that until now has been consistently applied. To link the education of kids to the wider problems in society is disingenuous. How govt chooses to portion up budget is within their gift and they could divert more towards education if they chose to. I have said what I think a fairer approach would have been re charitable threshold. A question back to you… is it right to introduce this change to VAT in January in the middle of a school year? If so why? Oh and I missed the key point back to those parents: 5. By having school fees exempt from VAT it means HMRC is not collecting a headline avg of £3,600 per year (although in reality that figure will be lower as schools will now be able to reclaim VAT on purchases) but that child being in pvt is not costing you anything unlike being in state where you will be contributing to the annual cost of £8k.You keep using this 8k figure as a saving to the taxpayer but that not accurate. That figure is what it costs the state now to educate children, all 9.1 million of them. So of the 615,000 kids in the private sector, if say 25% had to be absorbed and that's quoting from the worst estimate I've read. That's 154,000 kids. So the savings you talk about is not 8k, it's the cost used to get 9.25 million kids educated. So the extra is only counted in pounds, that's what you are saving the tax payer. As for why they are doing this in January I have no idea, I would think it's more sensible at the start of the school year and if not then the start of the financial year. You stated earlier that the IFS report didn't add for parents opinions, why is that pertinent? Mrs x I’m not sure I follow. The £8k figure is the cost per pupil in the state system. I’ve not looked but assume number of pupils divided by total education budget (although it may vary according to pupil age and school year so expect that is the average). The more pupils you have the more the budget needs to grow to cover their provision OR the total per each pupil needs to reduce." You'd only be adding 125,000 onto a total of 9.1 million kids in the state system. So the new total would now be 9.25 million and this wouldn't require any significant increase in costs. Mrs x | |||
" They will say, you are part of a privileged few that have had tax breaks for years and now you are paying what is due. This will be from parents, who have maybe more than two kids, who earn very little and have found themselves hundreds of pounds worse off because their means tested benefit was changed. Poor people made actually poorer by the system. The same system that allowed you to send your child to school because the system said you didn't need to pay VAT on the fees. The same VAT these poor parents have to pay on everything they buy. They could argue the revenue clawed back from them, because they had three children has been diverted to other parents to enable them to avoid paying VAT on school fees. 1. Until now the provision of education in the UK was exempt from VAT. 2. Most private schools are charities with no shareholders or dividends and all money being retained by the organisation to provide the “objects” of the charity, namely provide education. The Charities Commission assess each one and agree/permit them to be charities. 3. Charities are exempt from VAT. 4. I would point out that having a child in private school actually saves taxpayers £8k per year. The parent is already helping to ease pressure on govt budgets. It is not a “tax break” it is an established structure that until now has been consistently applied. To link the education of kids to the wider problems in society is disingenuous. How govt chooses to portion up budget is within their gift and they could divert more towards education if they chose to. I have said what I think a fairer approach would have been re charitable threshold. A question back to you… is it right to introduce this change to VAT in January in the middle of a school year? If so why? Oh and I missed the key point back to those parents: 5. By having school fees exempt from VAT it means HMRC is not collecting a headline avg of £3,600 per year (although in reality that figure will be lower as schools will now be able to reclaim VAT on purchases) but that child being in pvt is not costing you anything unlike being in state where you will be contributing to the annual cost of £8k.You keep using this 8k figure as a saving to the taxpayer but that not accurate. That figure is what it costs the state now to educate children, all 9.1 million of them. So of the 615,000 kids in the private sector, if say 25% had to be absorbed and that's quoting from the worst estimate I've read. That's 154,000 kids. So the savings you talk about is not 8k, it's the cost used to get 9.25 million kids educated. So the extra is only counted in pounds, that's what you are saving the tax payer. As for why they are doing this in January I have no idea, I would think it's more sensible at the start of the school year and if not then the start of the financial year. You stated earlier that the IFS report didn't add for parents opinions, why is that pertinent? Mrs x I’m not sure I follow. The £8k figure is the cost per pupil in the state system. I’ve not looked but assume number of pupils divided by total education budget (although it may vary according to pupil age and school year so expect that is the average). The more pupils you have the more the budget needs to grow to cover their provision OR the total per each pupil needs to reduce.You'd only be adding 125,000 onto a total of 9.1 million kids in the state system. So the new total would now be 9.25 million and this wouldn't require any significant increase in costs. Mrs x" Yes it would. The funding formula for state schools is per pupil. | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice.
Lol, put your kids through private education, even though state education did you well.
Think about what you wrote.
You deserve to pay VAT.
Parent who wants the best for his children and works hard to achieve that goal is vilified for his aspirations.
Fab needs a chips emoji.
They made a ridiculous statement. A typical vacuous surface level point devoid of actually understanding the detail involved. It proves that this policy is punitive and populist. If it wasn’t my kids future I’d be messing with (ie disruption) I’d stick back into state and let all of you pay for their education, but I won’t let them be part of a social experiment."In a world of ifs, *if* I had children and *if* I could afford it, I'd get them the best education my money could buy. On similar lines, if I could afford private health care I'd do the same. Power to you! | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice.
Lol, put your kids through private education, even though state education did you well.
Think about what you wrote.
You deserve to pay VAT.
Parent who wants the best for his children and works hard to achieve that goal is vilified for his aspirations.
Fab needs a chips emoji.
They made a ridiculous statement. A typical vacuous surface level point devoid of actually understanding the detail involved. It proves that this policy is punitive and populist. If it wasn’t my kids future I’d be messing with (ie disruption) I’d stick back into state and let all of you pay for their education, but I won’t let them be part of a social experiment.
In a world of ifs, *if* I had children and *if* I could afford it, I'd get them the best education my money could buy.
On similar lines, if I could afford private health care I'd do the same.
Power to you!"View A = I have chosen to privately educate my children which relieves pressure on the state and taxpayers even though I have paid tax that would have been needed to pay for my child’s place in state school. Having no VAT on fees is a small way of enabling that. View B = Regardless of your personal circumstances you must be richer than me so must be a bad person taking the state for a ride so I am going to tax you more and totally ignore view A. | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice.
Lol, put your kids through private education, even though state education did you well.
Think about what you wrote.
You deserve to pay VAT.
Parent who wants the best for his children and works hard to achieve that goal is vilified for his aspirations.
Fab needs a chips emoji.
They made a ridiculous statement. A typical vacuous surface level point devoid of actually understanding the detail involved. It proves that this policy is punitive and populist. If it wasn’t my kids future I’d be messing with (ie disruption) I’d stick back into state and let all of you pay for their education, but I won’t let them be part of a social experiment.
In a world of ifs, *if* I had children and *if* I could afford it, I'd get them the best education my money could buy.
On similar lines, if I could afford private health care I'd do the same.
Power to you!
View A = I have chosen to privately educate my children which relieves pressure on the state and taxpayers even though I have paid tax that would have been needed to pay for my child’s place in state school. Having no VAT on fees is a small way of enabling that.
View B = Regardless of your personal circumstances you must be richer than me so must be a bad person taking the state for a ride so I am going to tax you more and totally ignore view A."True story. View B is frequently based on ill informed, ill thought out envy. | |||
| |||
"What's wrong with the principle of giving people choice? The choice to opt out of state-run education, healthcare, dentistry. If the state then saves money, then it's reasonable to get some credit via tax breaks for private institutions. Otherwise, it's double taxation right? The problem here is that Socialists have an authoritarian doctrine and hate the principle of personal choice. Double taxation? What do you mean." Because as a taxpayer you are entitled to free state education. If you opt out, you waive that entitlement and pay for education out of taxed income. It could be argued that is double taxation, but then it gets worse because private school fees under Labour will contain a slice of VAT via the school. So is it triple taxation? | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice.
Lol, put your kids through private education, even though state education did you well.
Think about what you wrote.
You deserve to pay VAT.
Parent who wants the best for his children and works hard to achieve that goal is vilified for his aspirations.
Fab needs a chips emoji.
They made a ridiculous statement. A typical vacuous surface level point devoid of actually understanding the detail involved. It proves that this policy is punitive and populist. If it wasn’t my kids future I’d be messing with (ie disruption) I’d stick back into state and let all of you pay for their education, but I won’t let them be part of a social experiment.
In a world of ifs, *if* I had children and *if* I could afford it, I'd get them the best education my money could buy.
On similar lines, if I could afford private health care I'd do the same.
Power to you!
View A = I have chosen to privately educate my children which relieves pressure on the state and taxpayers even though I have paid tax that would have been needed to pay for my child’s place in state school. Having no VAT on fees is a small way of enabling that.
View B = Regardless of your personal circumstances you must be richer than me so must be a bad person taking the state for a ride so I am going to tax you more and totally ignore view A."Do you think this is a jealousy thing? Do you think non-dom status should be allowed and this scheme should not have been closed down? Why did Jimmy Carr recieve so much backlash over his Tax affairs? Is it jealousy or a feeling of inequity, one rule for us and another for those that can afford to pay for it? If you have done well within our society surely you should contribute back to society. Contribute in the same way as every other citizen within society, without additional benefits because you are lucky enough to have benefitted financially from this society. Anyone who chooses to spend money on their children's education could be said to already in a position of privilege. Given that others struggle on a daily basis to feed, clothe, house or heat themselves. To this proportion of society your struggles to find the funds to send your children to certain academic institutions, now that VAT has been added to your bill is very selfish. Certain groups, which are on the increase, cannot afford to eat. Have to utilise food banks to feed their kids. This part of society wants society to be fixed so that their are opportunities for everyone, not the privileged few. And it is the privileged few considering only 7% of children are privately educated. So whilst it doesn't affect me or mine directly, I can see why this section of society just wants everyone to pay their taxes equally. Now I understand how you can talk about paying already into the system and all that. But that's your choice and these people don't have that choice but they still have to pay all the applicable taxes and they may want everyone to pay their taxes too. You are in a fortunate position, anyone who puts their children through private education is. This just feels like a decision made with parity in mind. Like you said you are wealthy, you can choose what to spend your money on. Their are millions who don't have that luxury, but yeah it's all about jealousy, fuck fairness. Mrs x | |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice.
Lol, put your kids through private education, even though state education did you well.
Think about what you wrote.
You deserve to pay VAT.
Parent who wants the best for his children and works hard to achieve that goal is vilified for his aspirations.
Fab needs a chips emoji.
They made a ridiculous statement. A typical vacuous surface level point devoid of actually understanding the detail involved. It proves that this policy is punitive and populist. If it wasn’t my kids future I’d be messing with (ie disruption) I’d stick back into state and let all of you pay for their education, but I won’t let them be part of a social experiment.
In a world of ifs, *if* I had children and *if* I could afford it, I'd get them the best education my money could buy.
On similar lines, if I could afford private health care I'd do the same.
Power to you!
View A = I have chosen to privately educate my children which relieves pressure on the state and taxpayers even though I have paid tax that would have been needed to pay for my child’s place in state school. Having no VAT on fees is a small way of enabling that.
View B = Regardless of your personal circumstances you must be richer than me so must be a bad person taking the state for a ride so I am going to tax you more and totally ignore view A. Do you think this is a jealousy thing?
Do you think non-dom status should be allowed and this scheme should not have been closed down?
Why did Jimmy Carr recieve so much backlash over his Tax affairs?
Is it jealousy or a feeling of inequity, one rule for us and another for those that can afford to pay for it?
If you have done well within our society surely you should contribute back to society. Contribute in the same way as every other citizen within society, without additional benefits because you are lucky enough to have benefitted financially from this society.
Anyone who chooses to spend money on their children's education could be said to already in a position of privilege. Given that others struggle on a daily basis to feed, clothe, house or heat themselves. To this proportion of society your struggles to find the funds to send your children to certain academic institutions, now that VAT has been added to your bill is very selfish. Certain groups, which are on the increase, cannot afford to eat. Have to utilise food banks to feed their kids. This part of society wants society to be fixed so that their are opportunities for everyone, not the privileged few.
And it is the privileged few considering only 7% of children are privately educated. So whilst it doesn't affect me or mine directly, I can see why this section of society just wants everyone to pay their taxes equally.
Now I understand how you can talk about paying already into the system and all that. But that's your choice and these people don't have that choice but they still have to pay all the applicable taxes and they may want everyone to pay their taxes too. You are in a fortunate position, anyone who puts their children through private education is.
This just feels like a decision made with parity in mind. Like you said you are wealthy, you can choose what to spend your money on. Their are millions who don't have that luxury, but yeah it's all about jealousy, fuck fairness.
Mrs x"But what about those who are barely able to afford it but chose to make sacrifices but 20% is a step too far? But what about those on bursaries? Like your son? He only benefitted from a bursary because of parents paying full fees to fund that charitable action. This isn’t about me. I can afford to absorb this. But as said above, I know plenty who can’t. I know plenty already planning to leave. I know talented kids from low income families who will no longer reach their potential once bursaries are stopped (and they will be). Your son was an exceptional case and more in line with a scholarship. But the single most important thing is that this will not raise the money they say it will, it will cause the private school sector to contract, it will lead to redundancies, it will lead to more kids joining state needing funding (initially those who cannot afford and then those affected by school closures in areas with no other private choice open to them). And I’m sorry but people with kids choosing to not educate them in state school IS A BENEFIT TO TAXPAYERS. It saves the govt and taxpayers money. It feels morally wrong to punish that and no amount of whataboutism changes that. Of course there are many areas in our society that needs addressing, but that doesn’t make this ok. | |||
| |||
" 55% since 2003 is avg 2.5% per year. Inflation accounts for some of that if not most! Not that it is material, but the annual increase cannot be averaged like that. The "average" (ish) annual increase is closer to 2% because of compounding. You are correct that there is a massive difference between slow creep alongside inflation and a massive 20% whack alongside a cost of living crisis (many people kill themselves financially to send their kids to a private school and are not ultra wealthy). Of course but I am A) a simple soul and B) Not great a maths lol Should have gone to Eton.
I grew up on a council estate. I went to state school. A very good state school luckily. I did well. I have been successful in life. I have chosen to not put a tax burden on the state to educate my kids. I am now being penalised for that choice.
Lol, put your kids through private education, even though state education did you well.
Think about what you wrote.
You deserve to pay VAT.
Parent who wants the best for his children and works hard to achieve that goal is vilified for his aspirations.
Fab needs a chips emoji.
They made a ridiculous statement. A typical vacuous surface level point devoid of actually understanding the detail involved. It proves that this policy is punitive and populist. If it wasn’t my kids future I’d be messing with (ie disruption) I’d stick back into state and let all of you pay for their education, but I won’t let them be part of a social experiment.
In a world of ifs, *if* I had children and *if* I could afford it, I'd get them the best education my money could buy.
On similar lines, if I could afford private health care I'd do the same.
Power to you!
View A = I have chosen to privately educate my children which relieves pressure on the state and taxpayers even though I have paid tax that would have been needed to pay for my child’s place in state school. Having no VAT on fees is a small way of enabling that.
View B = Regardless of your personal circumstances you must be richer than me so must be a bad person taking the state for a ride so I am going to tax you more and totally ignore view A. Do you think this is a jealousy thing?
Do you think non-dom status should be allowed and this scheme should not have been closed down?
Why did Jimmy Carr recieve so much backlash over his Tax affairs?
Is it jealousy or a feeling of inequity, one rule for us and another for those that can afford to pay for it?
If you have done well within our society surely you should contribute back to society. Contribute in the same way as every other citizen within society, without additional benefits because you are lucky enough to have benefitted financially from this society.
Anyone who chooses to spend money on their children's education could be said to already in a position of privilege. Given that others struggle on a daily basis to feed, clothe, house or heat themselves. To this proportion of society your struggles to find the funds to send your children to certain academic institutions, now that VAT has been added to your bill is very selfish. Certain groups, which are on the increase, cannot afford to eat. Have to utilise food banks to feed their kids. This part of society wants society to be fixed so that their are opportunities for everyone, not the privileged few.
And it is the privileged few considering only 7% of children are privately educated. So whilst it doesn't affect me or mine directly, I can see why this section of society just wants everyone to pay their taxes equally.
Now I understand how you can talk about paying already into the system and all that. But that's your choice and these people don't have that choice but they still have to pay all the applicable taxes and they may want everyone to pay their taxes too. You are in a fortunate position, anyone who puts their children through private education is.
This just feels like a decision made with parity in mind. Like you said you are wealthy, you can choose what to spend your money on. Their are millions who don't have that luxury, but yeah it's all about jealousy, fuck fairness.
Mrs x
But what about those who are barely able to afford it but chose to make sacrifices but 20% is a step too far?
But what about those on bursaries? Like your son? He only benefitted from a bursary because of parents paying full fees to fund that charitable action.
This isn’t about me. I can afford to absorb this. But as said above, I know plenty who can’t. I know plenty already planning to leave. I know talented kids from low income families who will no longer reach their potential once bursaries are stopped (and they will be). Your son was an exceptional case and more in line with a scholarship.
But the single most important thing is that this will not raise the money they say it will, it will cause the private school sector to contract, it will lead to redundancies, it will lead to more kids joining state needing funding (initially those who cannot afford and then those affected by school closures in areas with no other private choice open to them).
And I’m sorry but people with kids choosing to not educate them in state school IS A BENEFIT TO TAXPAYERS. It saves the govt and taxpayers money. It feels morally wrong to punish that and no amount of whataboutism changes that. Of course there are many areas in our society that needs addressing, but that doesn’t make this ok."As for those who may not be able to afford it I said previously I empathise with them and they will have difficult decisions to make. But that doesn't take away the fact they they are still privileged and their choices won't involve choosing whether to heat their home or feed their kids. There are millions within our society that will have to do that this winter. As for the bursaries issue I want to clarify a few things. Firstly I said our son recieved a sporting scholarship, then was offered a bursary and finally some old boys paid his fees. This wasn't due to us being unable to pay but we simply refused because we knew sending him to this school would not make him any brighter academically and he was already playing rugby for England and the Irish Exiles. All that would have happened if we sent him was that he'd gain a wonderful experience. This is what happened at someone else's expense. As for scholarships and bursaries you believe they will stop. But they won't because they need academically smart kids to improve their ratings in the public school tables. Did you look at these when choosing your kids education. I would have supposed you did after all you'd want the most bang for your buck. So that's why they offer such schemes because not all rich kids are smart. Those kids you know, talented and on bursaries will not be affected as the VAT rule will not apply to them. You mention low income families struggling to pay but your definition of low income must be different to mine. Low income would mean struggling to find the multi thousand pound fee to send their kids to a private school, a low income family for me are those who are struggling to buy an extra tim of beans. Taxation is very emotive. Nobody wants to pay it, us included but we feel it should be fair. That's the issue here for large parts of society it doesn't seem fair, everyone should pay there tax, same as everyone else. That's the reason Jimmy Carr got such a hammering, it wasn't illegal its just not fair. The same thing with Rishi Sunak earing 20 million but only paying hardly any tax. Not illegal but immoral. All tax avoidance just smacks of I'm alright Jack just because you can afford to benefit from it and then those that can pull up the ladder behind them. A sort of 'Let them eat cake mentality". And as for it not working, greater minds than mine have said it will but if it doesn't it will bite Labour on the arse. So people have benefitted from not paying VAT on their school fees until now. So instead of moaning about it be thankful you've benefitted up till now. But I understand that will be hard for most people, it's a human nature thing to think it's not fair because it affects you negatively in your opinion. When I say you, I don't mean you personally, I mean all fee paying parents. Mrs x | |||
"What's wrong with the principle of giving people choice? The choice to opt out of state-run education, healthcare, dentistry. If the state then saves money, then it's reasonable to get some credit via tax breaks for private institutions. Otherwise, it's double taxation right? The problem here is that Socialists have an authoritarian doctrine and hate the principle of personal choice. Double taxation? What do you mean. Because as a taxpayer you are entitled to free state education. If you opt out, you waive that entitlement and pay for education out of taxed income. It could be argued that is double taxation, but then it gets worse because private school fees under Labour will contain a slice of VAT via the school. So is it triple taxation?" Sounds like what has been said about private health care before. People who have private health care still pay into the nhs via taxes which benefits others but they hardly use it themselves as they pay for a private care on top. In a way the school issue is more severe as the children don't draw on state system at all whereas someone with private health insurance may need the nhs in certain circumstances | |||
| |||
"Oh and don’t start talking about “fairness”. If you really wanted to be fair then opting to not use state schools ought to mean a tax rebate due to the amount they are saving the exchequer. But of course nobody in the right mind would ask for that but adding VAT is punitive. What it means in effect is each kid is paying (via parents) c.£8k per year into the exchequer they never need to use and an avg £3600 per year in VAT. How is that FAIR?" It's your choice, don't exercise it. Poorer parents have no choice. You are very self aware about this issue but are still moaning, choose something different. This from someone who agrees, actually said, that it's up to the government how it chooses to raise revenue. But you don't seem to agree now it affects you. Nobody is forcing you to make the choices you make, you are lucky to have such freedom. Mrs x | |||
"What's wrong with the principle of giving people choice? The choice to opt out of state-run education, healthcare, dentistry. If the state then saves money, then it's reasonable to get some credit via tax breaks for private institutions. Otherwise, it's double taxation right? The problem here is that Socialists have an authoritarian doctrine and hate the principle of personal choice. Double taxation? What do you mean. Because as a taxpayer you are entitled to free state education. If you opt out, you waive that entitlement and pay for education out of taxed income. It could be argued that is double taxation, but then it gets worse because private school fees under Labour will contain a slice of VAT via the school. So is it triple taxation? Sounds like what has been said about private health care before. People who have private health care still pay into the nhs via taxes which benefits others but they hardly use it themselves as they pay for a private care on top. In a way the school issue is more severe as the children don't draw on state system at all whereas someone with private health insurance may need the nhs in certain circumstances" Yep. You don’t pay VAT on most private healthcare or dentistry. Why should that continue if it will now apply to private school education? Both relieve pressure on the state provision providing benefits to taxpayers, but who cares about that right? | |||
"Oh and don’t start talking about “fairness”. If you really wanted to be fair then opting to not use state schools ought to mean a tax rebate due to the amount they are saving the exchequer. But of course nobody in the right mind would ask for that but adding VAT is punitive. What it means in effect is each kid is paying (via parents) c.£8k per year into the exchequer they never need to use and an avg £3600 per year in VAT. How is that FAIR?It's your choice, don't exercise it. Poorer parents have no choice. You are very self aware about this issue but are still moaning, choose something different. This from someone who agrees, actually said, that it's up to the government how it chooses to raise revenue. But you don't seem to agree now it affects you. Nobody is forcing you to make the choices you make, you are lucky to have such freedom. Mrs x" Again my point was not actually about me. As I said above, I am on my soapbox because of how this will affect people I know and many like them. | |||
"Eton college has sent a letter to parents saying it will raise its fees by a fifth in response to the government’s removal of the VAT exemption on private schools. The annual fees will increase from £52,749 to about £63,000. In the letter, the school said: “The provost and fellows regret that the government has chosen to tax education in this way.’’ From January the government will remove the VAT exemption and business rates relief for private schools, in order to generate funding for 6,500 new teachers in state schools. Should the government put Vat on private healthcare " close it get rid | |||
"Of course people on bursaries are affected. Most bursaries are not 100%. I said above that in our circle of school friends there are two families in receipt of bursaries, one 80% and one 30%. The VAT will apply to the balance making it unaffordable for them. Your tough choices point is straight out of this govt’s messaging playbook. I think this is the wrong choice. Clearly I feel strongly about this because I believe the sums won’t add up and the law of unintended consequences will kick in. The elite won’t be affected and the schools will become more elite! A better approach would have been to set a charitable threshold to increase access and and improve diversity. That is a positive and progressive approach instead of a punitive populist policy. It simply won’t achieve what Labour are publicly saying the purpose is (there won’t be 6,000 new teachers). However, I suspect there may be a secret objective. They ideologically want to destroy the private school sector and get the middle class kids back into the state system improving outcomes. Trouble is it means the current crop of kids are therefore part of a social experiment." So why are they getting bursaries? I was under tge impression that academically gifted kidd could get 100% scholarships. Sports scholarships can only get a maximum of 50%. These are paid out by the school itself. I then thought bursaries kicked in. Aren't these normally supplied by people leaving gifts which are then handed out as a bursary bit I could be wrong. I believe that those claiming either a scholarship or a bursary will not have tge new ruling applied to them. Eton actual said this in the letter handed out to their parents this week. As for your conspiracy theory I think it's just that. It's the same as those that say the Tories have ruined the NHS to introduce a private health care system as the only other viable option. That's a conspiracy too. As for your social experiment thoughts, imagine being one of those living through the social experiment of having to choose between food or heat. You are one of the lucky ones, you just don't feel it because you've been hit in your wallet. Mrscx | |||
"Oh and don’t start talking about “fairness”. If you really wanted to be fair then opting to not use state schools ought to mean a tax rebate due to the amount they are saving the exchequer. But of course nobody in the right mind would ask for that but adding VAT is punitive. What it means in effect is each kid is paying (via parents) c.£8k per year into the exchequer they never need to use and an avg £3600 per year in VAT. How is that FAIR?It's your choice, don't exercise it. Poorer parents have no choice. You are very self aware about this issue but are still moaning, choose something different. This from someone who agrees, actually said, that it's up to the government how it chooses to raise revenue. But you don't seem to agree now it affects you. Nobody is forcing you to make the choices you make, you are lucky to have such freedom. Mrs x Again my point was not actually about me. As I said above, I am on my soapbox because of how this will affect people I know and many like them." I'm not saying you per se I'm saying fee paying parents in general. Mrs x | |||
| |||
"if the public schools becomming vat registered will be able to claim back more vat than they charge then it would be churlish to end burseries to be fair. that's why that notion of burseries drying up because of the government policy is deflecting the idealogical actions of the public schools. nobody has stamped their feet over fees skyrocketing by 550% over the last 25 years despite real terms inflation over the same period being only 250%. despite this level of profiteering, public school places have increased in number." 🤣🤣🤣🤣 you haven’t been reading the thread have you! 550% what a total load of bollocks! If you are going to make an argument at least get your facts straight… “The average cost of private school fees has risen by 20% in real terms since 2010, and by 55% since 2003.” So approx 2% per year just like most other things in life! | |||
"if the public schools becomming vat registered will be able to claim back more vat than they charge then it would be churlish to end burseries to be fair. that's why that notion of burseries drying up because of the government policy is deflecting the idealogical actions of the public schools. nobody has stamped their feet over fees skyrocketing by 550% over the last 25 years despite real terms inflation over the same period being only 250%. despite this level of profiteering, public school places have increased in number. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 you haven’t been reading the thread have you! 550% what a total load of bollocks! If you are going to make an argument at least get your facts straight… “The average cost of private school fees has risen by 20% in real terms since 2010, and by 55% since 2003.” So approx 2% per year just like most other things in life!" crap! typo .... over 35 years that should read | |||
"Eton college has sent a letter to parents saying it will raise its fees by a fifth in response to the government’s removal of the VAT exemption on private schools. The annual fees will increase from £52,749 to about £63,000. In the letter, the school said: “The provost and fellows regret that the government has chosen to tax education in this way.’’ From January the government will remove the VAT exemption and business rates relief for private schools, in order to generate funding for 6,500 new teachers in state schools. Should the government put Vat on private healthcare close it get rid " Close what? | |||
| |||
"It’s a drop in the ocean to those with multi-million pound back accounts, heirs to dukedoms, earldoms, britains future banking elite, and likely all cabinet members of any future Tory Government. I’m sure where there is a political will no become VAT exempt, a legal way will be found." 15% of labour MPs were privately educated. 19% of labour MPs went to Oxbridge. Since records began in 1937, every Prime Minister (except Gordon Brown) who went to university went to Oxford. This includes our current PM, Sir Kier Starmer. | |||
| |||
"It’s a drop in the ocean to those with multi-million pound back accounts, heirs to dukedoms, earldoms, britains future banking elite, and likely all cabinet members of any future Tory Government. I’m sure where there is a political will no become VAT exempt, a legal way will be found. 15% of labour MPs were privately educated. 19% of labour MPs went to Oxbridge. Since records began in 1937, every Prime Minister (except Gordon Brown) who went to university went to Oxford. This includes our current PM, Sir Kier Starmer. " Only 7% of British born students go into private education, but around 20% of politicians are privately educated. I have no idea why you think naming and shaming a few labour politicians is going to prove a point. Over the past 14 years the tory cabinet has, on average been 40% privately educated, that's almost 6 times the ratio to public/ private education ratio. And why does it matter? If I could afford to send my kids to a private school, I would have. Statistically pro en that privately educated students do far better in adult life. Your getting you knickers in a twist because you think it's "them vs us". | |||
"It’s a drop in the ocean to those with multi-million pound back accounts, heirs to dukedoms, earldoms, britains future banking elite, and likely all cabinet members of any future Tory Government. I’m sure where there is a political will no become VAT exempt, a legal way will be found. 15% of labour MPs were privately educated. 19% of labour MPs went to Oxbridge. Since records began in 1937, every Prime Minister (except Gordon Brown) who went to university went to Oxford. This includes our current PM, Sir Kier Starmer. Only 7% of British born students go into private education, but around 20% of politicians are privately educated. I have no idea why you think naming and shaming a few labour politicians is going to prove a point. Over the past 14 years the tory cabinet has, on average been 40% privately educated, that's almost 6 times the ratio to public/ private education ratio. And why does it matter? If I could afford to send my kids to a private school, I would have. Statistically pro en that privately educated students do far better in adult life. Your getting you knickers in a twist because you think it's "them vs us". " No one 'named and shamed' Labour MPs. However perhaps the figures were about Labour because its a Labour policy. I know it's hard to imagine anyone could get 4 from 2+2 but there we have it. | |||
"I have no idea why you think naming and shaming a few labour politicians is going to prove a point. ... Your getting you knickers in a twist because you think it's "them vs us". " Presumably the statistics on Labour were quoted because the post to which this was a reply asserted "and likely all cabinet members of any future Tory Government". So this appears to have been a response to a "them vs us" post? (Could be wrong, though) | |||
| |||
| |||
"It’s a drop in the ocean to those with multi-million pound back accounts, heirs to dukedoms, earldoms, britains future banking elite, and likely all cabinet members of any future Tory Government. I’m sure where there is a political will no become VAT exempt, a legal way will be found. 15% of labour MPs were privately educated. 19% of labour MPs went to Oxbridge. Since records began in 1937, every Prime Minister (except Gordon Brown) who went to university went to Oxford. This includes our current PM, Sir Kier Starmer. Only 7% of British born students go into private education, but around 20% of politicians are privately educated. I have no idea why you think naming and shaming a few labour politicians is going to prove a point. Over the past 14 years the tory cabinet has, on average been 40% privately educated, that's almost 6 times the ratio to public/ private education ratio. And why does it matter? If I could afford to send my kids to a private school, I would have. Statistically pro en that privately educated students do far better in adult life. Your getting you knickers in a twist because you think it's "them vs us". " Maybe if you read the comment I replied to you'd see why I posted the data. There's no naming and shaming, that's an odd take away. As I posted further back, I would have my children privately educated if I had any and if I could afford it. | |||
"I have no idea why you think naming and shaming a few labour politicians is going to prove a point. ... Your getting you knickers in a twist because you think it's "them vs us". Presumably the statistics on Labour were quoted because the post to which this was a reply asserted "and likely all cabinet members of any future Tory Government". So this appears to have been a response to a "them vs us" post? (Could be wrong, though)" You got it. | |||
