FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > ISC taking legal action over school VAT
ISC taking legal action over school VAT
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
| |||
"I don't think that people don't care, I just think the majority view it as an 'elitist' problem. Which sadly does not include them. Mrs x" I know, ignorance is bliss ain’t it! All those elitist faith school kids. Bloody elitist SEN kids. All those back stabbing working class boot licking forelock tugging poor elitist kids on bursaries. All those knock on impacts of this policy that will ultimately negatively impact the state school system. But nah, just about sticking it to the toffs right? | |||
| |||
| |||
"I don't think that people don't care, I just think the majority view it as an 'elitist' problem. Which sadly does not include them. Mrs x I know, ignorance is bliss ain’t it! All those elitist faith school kids. Bloody elitist SEN kids. All those back stabbing working class boot licking forelock tugging poor elitist kids on bursaries. All those knock on impacts of this policy that will ultimately negatively impact the state school system. But nah, just about sticking it to the toffs right?" That's a bit rude, I've not mentioned rich kids have I. As for SEN schools, councils have a duty to supply extra education needs once a child has been statemented. They will recieve a EHCP as part of their care plan. The majority of such schools are purely business orientated, charging large fees, some going into the thousands of pounds a week which have to be paid for by local authorities. These SEN schools cater for those children in the care system who have been excluded from main stream education. These are the majority of SEN provision in the country and are ultimately funded by the tax payer. As for faith schools, I think the perception is that religions are one of the richest organisations on Earth, so if you want your kids to go there why don't the individual faiths help out? After all surely this would increase potential individuals to join their flock later on in life. And as for specialist schools, art, music etc, where do you draw the line? They are seen as more of a hobby than an educational necessity. I think that's the perception with these type of schools. If you want your kids to go to schools because of your wants, beliefs or desires than why shouldn't you foot the bill. And when I say bill I mean paying the appropriate tax on said bills just like everyone else has to pay on their purchases. I think that's the perception for the majority of the population. Mrs x | |||
"I think this Labour government really has very little interest or understanding of anything outside of its core vote, that is the public sector and trade unions. It has zero interest in business aside from having learnt to say the word “growth” and hope that something positive happens. Mixed with a good dollop of old fashioned Labour envy and class warfare. Focusing on the 20% at the expense of the 80% isn’t like to last very long. The local election results that I’ve seen since the GE suggest that Labours vote share is collapsing already. My guess is that the farmers will kick off big time soon." Hello there, I am afraid you are not living in the real world, labour have just won an election with a huge majority , they have a mandate from the country , a few disgruntled farmers won’t have much effect , the electorate have spoken | |||
"I think this Labour government really has very little interest or understanding of anything outside of its core vote, that is the public sector and trade unions. It has zero interest in business aside from having learnt to say the word “growth” and hope that something positive happens. Mixed with a good dollop of old fashioned Labour envy and class warfare. Focusing on the 20% at the expense of the 80% isn’t like to last very long. The local election results that I’ve seen since the GE suggest that Labours vote share is collapsing already. My guess is that the farmers will kick off big time soon. Hello there, I am afraid you are not living in the real world, labour have just won an election with a huge majority , they have a mandate from the country , a few disgruntled farmers won’t have much effect , the electorate have spoken " Patisms are strong in this post  | |||
| |||
"I think this Labour government really has very little interest or understanding of anything outside of its core vote, that is the public sector and trade unions. It has zero interest in business aside from having learnt to say the word “growth” and hope that something positive happens. Mixed with a good dollop of old fashioned Labour envy and class warfare. Focusing on the 20% at the expense of the 80% isn’t like to last very long. The local election results that I’ve seen since the GE suggest that Labours vote share is collapsing already. My guess is that the farmers will kick off big time soon. Hello there, I am afraid you are not living in the real world, labour have just won an election with a huge majority , they have a mandate from the country , a few disgruntled farmers won’t have much effect , the electorate have spoken " Is that you Keir? Haven’t you got work to do before you knock off at 4? | |||
"I think this Labour government really has very little interest or understanding of anything outside of its core vote, that is the public sector and trade unions. It has zero interest in business aside from having learnt to say the word “growth” and hope that something positive happens. Mixed with a good dollop of old fashioned Labour envy and class warfare. Focusing on the 20% at the expense of the 80% isn’t like to last very long. The local election results that I’ve seen since the GE suggest that Labours vote share is collapsing already. My guess is that the farmers will kick off big time soon. Hello there, I am afraid you are not living in the real world, labour have just won an election with a huge majority , they have a mandate from the country , a few disgruntled farmers won’t have much effect , the electorate have spoken Is that you Keir? Haven’t you got work to do before you knock off at 4?" You need wake up, look outside your bubble, labour have a huge majority, they have a huge job to do, this is just the start, a few disgruntled farmers won’t effect their work, the electorate have spoken | |||
"I think this Labour government really has very little interest or understanding of anything outside of its core vote, that is the public sector and trade unions. It has zero interest in business aside from having learnt to say the word “growth” and hope that something positive happens. Mixed with a good dollop of old fashioned Labour envy and class warfare. Focusing on the 20% at the expense of the 80% isn’t like to last very long. The local election results that I’ve seen since the GE suggest that Labours vote share is collapsing already. My guess is that the farmers will kick off big time soon. Hello there, I am afraid you are not living in the real world, labour have just won an election with a huge majority , they have a mandate from the country , a few disgruntled farmers won’t have much effect , the electorate have spoken Is that you Keir? Haven’t you got work to do before you knock off at 4? You need wake up, look outside your bubble, labour have a huge majority, they have a huge job to do, this is just the start, a few disgruntled farmers won’t effect their work, the electorate have spoken " “This is just the start “. I think that’s what’s worrying everyone. | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money" PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years | |||
"I think this Labour government really has very little interest or understanding of anything outside of its core vote, that is the public sector and trade unions. It has zero interest in business aside from having learnt to say the word “growth” and hope that something positive happens. Mixed with a good dollop of old fashioned Labour envy and class warfare. Focusing on the 20% at the expense of the 80% isn’t like to last very long. The local election results that I’ve seen since the GE suggest that Labours vote share is collapsing already. My guess is that the farmers will kick off big time soon. Hello there, I am afraid you are not living in the real world, labour have just won an election with a huge majority , they have a mandate from the country , a few disgruntled farmers won’t have much effect , the electorate have spoken Is that you Keir? Haven’t you got work to do before you knock off at 4? You need wake up, look outside your bubble, labour have a huge majority, they have a huge job to do, this is just the start, a few disgruntled farmers won’t effect their work, the electorate have spoken “This is just the start “. I think that’s what’s worrying everyone." Hello there, yes, they have been in government for 4 months, they have already lasted longer than liz truss . They inherited a mess created by Brexit and 14 years of Tory ineptitude, these are the first steps, the electorate have spoken | |||
"I don't think that people don't care, I just think the majority view it as an 'elitist' problem. Which sadly does not include them. Mrs x I know, ignorance is bliss ain’t it! All those elitist faith school kids. Bloody elitist SEN kids. All those back stabbing working class boot licking forelock tugging poor elitist kids on bursaries. All those knock on impacts of this policy that will ultimately negatively impact the state school system. But nah, just about sticking it to the toffs right? That's a bit rude, I've not mentioned rich kids have I. As for SEN schools, councils have a duty to supply extra education needs once a child has been statemented. They will recieve a EHCP as part of their care plan. The majority of such schools are purely business orientated, charging large fees, some going into the thousands of pounds a week which have to be paid for by local authorities. These SEN schools cater for those children in the care system who have been excluded from main stream education. These are the majority of SEN provision in the country and are ultimately funded by the tax payer. As for faith schools, I think the perception is that religions are one of the richest organisations on Earth, so if you want your kids to go there why don't the individual faiths help out? After all surely this would increase potential individuals to join their flock later on in life. And as for specialist schools, art, music etc, where do you draw the line? They are seen as more of a hobby than an educational necessity. I think that's the perception with these type of schools. If you want your kids to go to schools because of your wants, beliefs or desires than why shouldn't you foot the bill. And when I say bill I mean paying the appropriate tax on said bills just like everyone else has to pay on their purchases. I think that's the perception for the majority of the population. Mrs x" On the rude bit, like you I wasn’t aiming the response at you but at your post which was playing devil’s advocate. I know what many people think but most only scratch the surface (as it doesn’t affect them) and many just see this as sticking it to the toffs. Most don’t think about the £4.5bn saving to taxpayers there is by these kids being privately educated (from net post tax income so a net profit for the exchequer). Your point on SEN is not the true reality though. I won’t cross post but I quoted an example article in the thread that recently closed demonstrating that many kids do not have, or have been refused, EHCPs. As for paying tax on purchases, that argument is completely spurious. The provision of education has always been exempt from VAT. So if it is to be applied to independent schools then why not university? Also why is private healthcare exempt from VAT? | |||
" I know most don’t care but I will keep posting on this topic anyway "You do that 
But don't expect to ever change a purely ideological policy with rational arguments. | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money" Not according to the Charity Commission who grant and monitor charity status. Also you have fallen into the trap if treating them all like one bug homogenous whole. They are not all the same. | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years" Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. | |||
" I know most don’t care but I will keep posting on this topic anyway
You do that
But don't expect to ever change a purely ideological policy with rational arguments."
It is totally ideological (and hypocritical in some cases) and a purely populist punitive policy! | |||
"I think this Labour government really has very little interest or understanding of anything outside of its core vote, that is the public sector and trade unions. It has zero interest in business aside from having learnt to say the word “growth” and hope that something positive happens. Mixed with a good dollop of old fashioned Labour envy and class warfare. Focusing on the 20% at the expense of the 80% isn’t like to last very long. The local election results that I’ve seen since the GE suggest that Labours vote share is collapsing already. My guess is that the farmers will kick off big time soon. Hello there, I am afraid you are not living in the real world, labour have just won an election with a huge majority , they have a mandate from the country , a few disgruntled farmers won’t have much effect , the electorate have spoken Is that you Keir? Haven’t you got work to do before you knock off at 4? You need wake up, look outside your bubble, labour have a huge majority, they have a huge job to do, this is just the start, a few disgruntled farmers won’t effect their work, the electorate have spoken “This is just the start “. I think that’s what’s worrying everyone. Hello there, yes, they have been in government for 4 months, they have already lasted longer than liz truss . They inherited a mess created by Brexit and 14 years of Tory ineptitude, these are the first steps, the electorate have spoken " Result from yesterday in Bilston North (Wolverhampton) council by-election result: ➡️ REF: 34.8% (+34.8) 🌹LAB: 25.1% (-38.0) 🌍GRN: 23.4% (+11.4) 🌳CON: 13.7% (-11.2) The electorate have spoken! | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money Not according to the Charity Commission who grant and monitor charity status. Also you have fallen into the trap if treating them all like one bug homogenous whole. They are not all the same." I didn't. I just didn't say "most" in my post. Most are though according to reports. So to get charity status which comes with many benefits they have to offer benefits to the local community...so maybe offer a bursary to someone who can't afford the fees or invite schools from the area to watch them play on their sports field for the afternoon....good gig if you can get it | |||
"I think this Labour government really has very little interest or understanding of anything outside of its core vote, that is the public sector and trade unions. It has zero interest in business aside from having learnt to say the word “growth” and hope that something positive happens. Mixed with a good dollop of old fashioned Labour envy and class warfare. Focusing on the 20% at the expense of the 80% isn’t like to last very long. The local election results that I’ve seen since the GE suggest that Labours vote share is collapsing already. My guess is that the farmers will kick off big time soon. Hello there, I am afraid you are not living in the real world, labour have just won an election with a huge majority , they have a mandate from the country , a few disgruntled farmers won’t have much effect , the electorate have spoken Is that you Keir? Haven’t you got work to do before you knock off at 4? You need wake up, look outside your bubble, labour have a huge majority, they have a huge job to do, this is just the start, a few disgruntled farmers won’t effect their work, the electorate have spoken “This is just the start “. I think that’s what’s worrying everyone. Hello there, yes, they have been in government for 4 months, they have already lasted longer than liz truss . They inherited a mess created by Brexit and 14 years of Tory ineptitude, these are the first steps, the electorate have spoken Result from yesterday in Bilston North (Wolverhampton) council by-election result: ➡️ REF: 34.8% (+34.8) 🌹LAB: 25.1% (-38.0) 🌍GRN: 23.4% (+11.4) 🌳CON: 13.7% (-11.2) The electorate have spoken!" Hello there, that is an irrelevant council election, the important general election was in July where labour won 411 seats and a huge majority. A few disgruntled voters in Wolverhampton are irrelevant, labour have a mandate from the country and huge job to mend this country, the electorate have spoken | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive." Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? | |||
"I think this Labour government really has very little interest or understanding of anything outside of its core vote, that is the public sector and trade unions. It has zero interest in business aside from having learnt to say the word “growth” and hope that something positive happens. Mixed with a good dollop of old fashioned Labour envy and class warfare. Focusing on the 20% at the expense of the 80% isn’t like to last very long. The local election results that I’ve seen since the GE suggest that Labours vote share is collapsing already. My guess is that the farmers will kick off big time soon. Hello there, I am afraid you are not living in the real world, labour have just won an election with a huge majority , they have a mandate from the country , a few disgruntled farmers won’t have much effect , the electorate have spoken Is that you Keir? Haven’t you got work to do before you knock off at 4? You need wake up, look outside your bubble, labour have a huge majority, they have a huge job to do, this is just the start, a few disgruntled farmers won’t effect their work, the electorate have spoken “This is just the start “. I think that’s what’s worrying everyone. Hello there, yes, they have been in government for 4 months, they have already lasted longer than liz truss . They inherited a mess created by Brexit and 14 years of Tory ineptitude, these are the first steps, the electorate have spoken Result from yesterday in Bilston North (Wolverhampton) council by-election result: ➡️ REF: 34.8% (+34.8) 🌹LAB: 25.1% (-38.0) 🌍GRN: 23.4% (+11.4) 🌳CON: 13.7% (-11.2) The electorate have spoken!" BTW, reform only won 5 seats in the general ekecatin, which is 406 less than labour | |||
| |||
"I don't think that people don't care, I just think the majority view it as an 'elitist' problem. Which sadly does not include them. Mrs x I know, ignorance is bliss ain’t it! All those elitist faith school kids. Bloody elitist SEN kids. All those back stabbing working class boot licking forelock tugging poor elitist kids on bursaries. All those knock on impacts of this policy that will ultimately negatively impact the state school system. But nah, just about sticking it to the toffs right? That's a bit rude, I've not mentioned rich kids have I. As for SEN schools, councils have a duty to supply extra education needs once a child has been statemented. They will recieve a EHCP as part of their care plan. The majority of such schools are purely business orientated, charging large fees, some going into the thousands of pounds a week which have to be paid for by local authorities. These SEN schools cater for those children in the care system who have been excluded from main stream education. These are the majority of SEN provision in the country and are ultimately funded by the tax payer. As for faith schools, I think the perception is that religions are one of the richest organisations on Earth, so if you want your kids to go there why don't the individual faiths help out? After all surely this would increase potential individuals to join their flock later on in life. And as for specialist schools, art, music etc, where do you draw the line? They are seen as more of a hobby than an educational necessity. I think that's the perception with these type of schools. If you want your kids to go to schools because of your wants, beliefs or desires than why shouldn't you foot the bill. And when I say bill I mean paying the appropriate tax on said bills just like everyone else has to pay on their purchases. I think that's the perception for the majority of the population. Mrs x On the rude bit, like you I wasn’t aiming the response at you but at your post which was playing devil’s advocate. I know what many people think but most only scratch the surface (as it doesn’t affect them) and many just see this as sticking it to the toffs. Most don’t think about the £4.5bn saving to taxpayers there is by these kids being privately educated (from net post tax income so a net profit for the exchequer). Your point on SEN is not the true reality though. I won’t cross post but I quoted an example article in the thread that recently closed demonstrating that many kids do not have, or have been refused, EHCPs. As for paying tax on purchases, that argument is completely spurious. The provision of education has always been exempt from VAT. So if it is to be applied to independent schools then why not university? Also why is private healthcare exempt from VAT? " Your point in regards to EHCP being refused cannot be about children in the care system. It's a legal requirement, with a time frame for it to be put in place. As for your questioning the fact that VAT has not been paid historically in this area is not spurious. Everything in life we have to abide by has had to come into existence at some point in time. Unfortunately this time the 'introduction' comes now and affects you or those you know. If the 'introduction' was something that benefitted you I'm sure you'd think differently about it. But everything changes over time, it's normal and keeping the status quo is not a valid argument for standing still. It's not a bashing the Toffs thing, just like it's not been a 'pick on the poor' thing when it wasn't charged, but it just seems fair that everyone pays their fair share of tax. I know you don't agree. Mrs x | |||
" It's not a bashing the Toffs thing, just like it's not been a 'pick on the poor' thing when it wasn't charged, but it just seems fair that everyone pays their fair share of tax. I know you don't agree. Mrs x" If education is going to loose it’s vat exemption then surely it is ‘fair’ that all education is included, otherwise it is just a descriminatory thing. People choose to go to university so why not charge them vat, it’s the disparity that I question. It’s a bit like saying children’s clothing is vat exempt but not if you choose to buy from a high end source, cos if you’ve got the dosh to buy the expensive stuff you can afford to pay vat on it. It’s fairly plain to see that the policy is just an appeasement to the ‘wealthy bad, poor good’ mentality. Whether people agree or disagree with the policy at least be honest about its origins. | |||
" It's not a bashing the Toffs thing, just like it's not been a 'pick on the poor' thing when it wasn't charged, but it just seems fair that everyone pays their fair share of tax. I know you don't agree. Mrs x If education is going to loose it’s vat exemption then surely it is ‘fair’ that all education is included, otherwise it is just a descriminatory thing. People choose to go to university so why not charge them vat, it’s the disparity that I question. It’s a bit like saying children’s clothing is vat exempt but not if you choose to buy from a high end source, cos if you’ve got the dosh to buy the expensive stuff you can afford to pay vat on it. It’s fairly plain to see that the policy is just an appeasement to the ‘wealthy bad, poor good’ mentality. Whether people agree or disagree with the policy at least be honest about its origins. " So for all the years it's not been paid was it a case of 'wealthy good, poor bad'? I don't think so, it's just an area this administration has decided to change. Mrs x | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money Not according to the Charity Commission who grant and monitor charity status. Also you have fallen into the trap if treating them all like one bug homogenous whole. They are not all the same. I didn't. I just didn't say "most" in my post. Most are though according to reports. So to get charity status which comes with many benefits they have to offer benefits to the local community...so maybe offer a bursary to someone who can't afford the fees or invite schools from the area to watch them play on their sports field for the afternoon....good gig if you can get it "I have been vocal on here that instead of taking a punitive approach the Govt could instead have given these schools a choice: 1. Increase your charitable activity to a minimum threshold level and retain charity status and VAT exemption or 2. Accept you are operating as a business and lose charity status and VAT exemption (but obviously we no longer expect you to act charitably)* *you can’t have it both ways even though Ministers have said they do expect them to continue their charitable activity! Errr nope! | |||
| |||
"Can I ask a question about bursaries? Aren't they gifts given to schools by individuals, companies, groups etc and they specify how they are to be awarded, and to whom. If that's the case will they be stopped because of this because they are not actually coming out of school funds? Mrs x" Some might be but most bursaries are funded from the fees paid by fee paying parents. So a proportion of the fees collected are paid into a fund to support bursaries for those who cannot afford full fees. That arrangement is by its nature charitable, ie parent A pays more than parent B and some of what parent A pays is used to support parent B. Now if you start making parent A pay more by adding VAT they night say I am no longer happy that a proportion of what I pay is used to support those who cannot afford it. I want that proportion removed to bring my fees back down to offset the VAT increase. Ergo, schools may cut back and eventually remove charitable activity. | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money Not according to the Charity Commission who grant and monitor charity status. Also you have fallen into the trap if treating them all like one bug homogenous whole. They are not all the same. I didn't. I just didn't say "most" in my post. Most are though according to reports. So to get charity status which comes with many benefits they have to offer benefits to the local community...so maybe offer a bursary to someone who can't afford the fees or invite schools from the area to watch them play on their sports field for the afternoon....good gig if you can get it "“Most” implies “majority” which is not the case. | |||
" It's not a bashing the Toffs thing, just like it's not been a 'pick on the poor' thing when it wasn't charged, but it just seems fair that everyone pays their fair share of tax. I know you don't agree. Mrs x If education is going to loose it’s vat exemption then surely it is ‘fair’ that all education is included, otherwise it is just a descriminatory thing. People choose to go to university so why not charge them vat, it’s the disparity that I question. It’s a bit like saying children’s clothing is vat exempt but not if you choose to buy from a high end source, cos if you’ve got the dosh to buy the expensive stuff you can afford to pay vat on it. It’s fairly plain to see that the policy is just an appeasement to the ‘wealthy bad, poor good’ mentality. Whether people agree or disagree with the policy at least be honest about its origins. So for all the years it's not been paid was it a case of 'wealthy good, poor bad'? I don't think so, it's just an area this administration has decided to change. Mrs x" When there was no disparity it was ‘all good’. The previous government used to manage to set different parts of society against each other in a divide and distract tactic, I just view this as a similar thing. | |||
"I don't think that people don't care, I just think the majority view it as an 'elitist' problem. Which sadly does not include them. Mrs x I know, ignorance is bliss ain’t it! All those elitist faith school kids. Bloody elitist SEN kids. All those back stabbing working class boot licking forelock tugging poor elitist kids on bursaries. All those knock on impacts of this policy that will ultimately negatively impact the state school system. But nah, just about sticking it to the toffs right? That's a bit rude, I've not mentioned rich kids have I. As for SEN schools, councils have a duty to supply extra education needs once a child has been statemented. They will recieve a EHCP as part of their care plan. The majority of such schools are purely business orientated, charging large fees, some going into the thousands of pounds a week which have to be paid for by local authorities. These SEN schools cater for those children in the care system who have been excluded from main stream education. These are the majority of SEN provision in the country and are ultimately funded by the tax payer. As for faith schools, I think the perception is that religions are one of the richest organisations on Earth, so if you want your kids to go there why don't the individual faiths help out? After all surely this would increase potential individuals to join their flock later on in life. And as for specialist schools, art, music etc, where do you draw the line? They are seen as more of a hobby than an educational necessity. I think that's the perception with these type of schools. If you want your kids to go to schools because of your wants, beliefs or desires than why shouldn't you foot the bill. And when I say bill I mean paying the appropriate tax on said bills just like everyone else has to pay on their purchases. I think that's the perception for the majority of the population. Mrs x On the rude bit, like you I wasn’t aiming the response at you but at your post which was playing devil’s advocate. I know what many people think but most only scratch the surface (as it doesn’t affect them) and many just see this as sticking it to the toffs. Most don’t think about the £4.5bn saving to taxpayers there is by these kids being privately educated (from net post tax income so a net profit for the exchequer). Your point on SEN is not the true reality though. I won’t cross post but I quoted an example article in the thread that recently closed demonstrating that many kids do not have, or have been refused, EHCPs. As for paying tax on purchases, that argument is completely spurious. The provision of education has always been exempt from VAT. So if it is to be applied to independent schools then why not university? Also why is private healthcare exempt from VAT? Your point in regards to EHCP being refused cannot be about children in the care system. It's a legal requirement, with a time frame for it to be put in place. As for your questioning the fact that VAT has not been paid historically in this area is not spurious. Everything in life we have to abide by has had to come into existence at some point in time. Unfortunately this time the 'introduction' comes now and affects you or those you know. If the 'introduction' was something that benefitted you I'm sure you'd think differently about it. But everything changes over time, it's normal and keeping the status quo is not a valid argument for standing still. It's not a bashing the Toffs thing, just like it's not been a 'pick on the poor' thing when it wasn't charged, but it just seems fair that everyone pays their fair share of tax. I know you don't agree. Mrs x" There are a very high proportion of kids who are SEN, for example diagnosed with low level autism or ADHD, that do not have, or have been refused a EHCP. The press has had examples and I shared some in other threads. I know first hand that one of the independent schools in Brighton take a very high proportion of “difficult” children in yr7 who are struggling in state school. I will be watching with interest to see if they continue that offer in the coming years. | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help?" Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system. | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system." But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x | |||
| |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x" What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education. | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education." It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x" Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach? | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?" I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x" Applying VAT across the board would make necessities more expensive for everyone, impacting mainly those with lower incomes who spend a higher percentage on essentials, are you happy for that to be the policy? I believe a tax policy should balance revenue needs with impact, not blindly tax every choice without considering how it affects the cost of living or how removing a tax saves the government and ultimately the tax payer money purely to satisfy an ideology of everyone should pay the government money if they buy something. | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x Applying VAT across the board would make necessities more expensive for everyone, impacting mainly those with lower incomes who spend a higher percentage on essentials, are you happy for that to be the policy? I believe a tax policy should balance revenue needs with impact, not blindly tax every choice without considering how it affects the cost of living or how removing a tax saves the government and ultimately the tax payer money purely to satisfy an ideology of everyone should pay the government money if they buy something. " So if anyone should get a tax break it should be lower income parents, that's exactly what I'm saying. By not having to pay a tax on this purchase it appears to be only the wealthy that benefit from the system. And they have a choice where to send their kids whilst poorer parents don't. It's this perceived inequality that gives rise to the apathy amongst the rest of the population. It doesn't SEEM fair, Mrs x | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money Not according to the Charity Commission who grant and monitor charity status. Also you have fallen into the trap if treating them all like one bug homogenous whole. They are not all the same. I didn't. I just didn't say "most" in my post. Most are though according to reports. So to get charity status which comes with many benefits they have to offer benefits to the local community...so maybe offer a bursary to someone who can't afford the fees or invite schools from the area to watch them play on their sports field for the afternoon....good gig if you can get it
“Most” implies “majority” which is not the case."I saw an article today that said 70%, which would be a majority | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. " Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? | |||
| |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x Applying VAT across the board would make necessities more expensive for everyone, impacting mainly those with lower incomes who spend a higher percentage on essentials, are you happy for that to be the policy? I believe a tax policy should balance revenue needs with impact, not blindly tax every choice without considering how it affects the cost of living or how removing a tax saves the government and ultimately the tax payer money purely to satisfy an ideology of everyone should pay the government money if they buy something. So if anyone should get a tax break it should be lower income parents, that's exactly what I'm saying. By not having to pay a tax on this purchase it appears to be only the wealthy that benefit from the system. And they have a choice where to send their kids whilst poorer parents don't. It's this perceived inequality that gives rise to the apathy amongst the rest of the population. It doesn't SEEM fair, Mrs x" I simply can’t agree with this ‘cake and eat it’ philosophy. It’s not about favouring one group over another but about creating a system that considers the broader impact on society. When certain services are exempt from VAT, it’s often because they provide a public benefit or reduce pressure on government resources, which ultimately benefits everyone. Fairness isn’t just about taxing every choice but recognising where exemptions actually make economic sense. | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x Applying VAT across the board would make necessities more expensive for everyone, impacting mainly those with lower incomes who spend a higher percentage on essentials, are you happy for that to be the policy? I believe a tax policy should balance revenue needs with impact, not blindly tax every choice without considering how it affects the cost of living or how removing a tax saves the government and ultimately the tax payer money purely to satisfy an ideology of everyone should pay the government money if they buy something. So if anyone should get a tax break it should be lower income parents, that's exactly what I'm saying. By not having to pay a tax on this purchase it appears to be only the wealthy that benefit from the system. And they have a choice where to send their kids whilst poorer parents don't. It's this perceived inequality that gives rise to the apathy amongst the rest of the population. It doesn't SEEM fair, Mrs x I simply can’t agree with this ‘cake and eat it’ philosophy. It’s not about favouring one group over another but about creating a system that considers the broader impact on society. When certain services are exempt from VAT, it’s often because they provide a public benefit or reduce pressure on government resources, which ultimately benefits everyone. Fairness isn’t just about taxing every choice but recognising where exemptions actually make economic sense." So when you can give a fiscal lift to those that actually need it? Is that what you mean? Mrs x | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x Applying VAT across the board would make necessities more expensive for everyone, impacting mainly those with lower incomes who spend a higher percentage on essentials, are you happy for that to be the policy? I believe a tax policy should balance revenue needs with impact, not blindly tax every choice without considering how it affects the cost of living or how removing a tax saves the government and ultimately the tax payer money purely to satisfy an ideology of everyone should pay the government money if they buy something. So if anyone should get a tax break it should be lower income parents, that's exactly what I'm saying. By not having to pay a tax on this purchase it appears to be only the wealthy that benefit from the system. And they have a choice where to send their kids whilst poorer parents don't. It's this perceived inequality that gives rise to the apathy amongst the rest of the population. It doesn't SEEM fair, Mrs x I simply can’t agree with this ‘cake and eat it’ philosophy. It’s not about favouring one group over another but about creating a system that considers the broader impact on society. When certain services are exempt from VAT, it’s often because they provide a public benefit or reduce pressure on government resources, which ultimately benefits everyone. Fairness isn’t just about taxing every choice but recognising where exemptions actually make economic sense.So when you can give a fiscal lift to those that actually need it? Is that what you mean? Mrs x" Exemptions are meant to create benefits where they have the most impact. Removing VAT on targeted areas eases pressure on public resources and reduces costs across the board, not just for one group. The value lies in strategic exemptions that drive positive effects throughout the economy. | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x" So why don’t “we” pay VAT on private healthcare or insurance? Why don’t “we” pay VAT on university fees? | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x Applying VAT across the board would make necessities more expensive for everyone, impacting mainly those with lower incomes who spend a higher percentage on essentials, are you happy for that to be the policy? I believe a tax policy should balance revenue needs with impact, not blindly tax every choice without considering how it affects the cost of living or how removing a tax saves the government and ultimately the tax payer money purely to satisfy an ideology of everyone should pay the government money if they buy something. So if anyone should get a tax break it should be lower income parents, that's exactly what I'm saying. By not having to pay a tax on this purchase it appears to be only the wealthy that benefit from the system. And they have a choice where to send their kids whilst poorer parents don't. It's this perceived inequality that gives rise to the apathy amongst the rest of the population. It doesn't SEEM fair, Mrs x I simply can’t agree with this ‘cake and eat it’ philosophy. It’s not about favouring one group over another but about creating a system that considers the broader impact on society. When certain services are exempt from VAT, it’s often because they provide a public benefit or reduce pressure on government resources, which ultimately benefits everyone. Fairness isn’t just about taxing every choice but recognising where exemptions actually make economic sense.So when you can give a fiscal lift to those that actually need it? Is that what you mean? Mrs x Exemptions are meant to create benefits where they have the most impact. Removing VAT on targeted areas eases pressure on public resources and reduces costs across the board, not just for one group. The value lies in strategic exemptions that drive positive effects throughout the economy." But that doesn't help the individuals that need the help. The system is designed to keep wealth with the wealthy. It's not FAIR, and isn't perceived as FAIR by the majority. Those that only have choices about having toast or pushing out the boat to have beans on toast don't care about the Hooray Henry's having to cut back on Yoga and their Sushi so they can afford to send little Tarquin to the school of their choice. Mrs x | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x" Then rebate those parents £7.5k per year as saving taxpayers that clearly means nothing
And VAT has never applied to education so nobody is getting a tax break because it has never been a thing!
If we are going to say “Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything.” Then why are some things still exempt? Why are some things in a different VAT rate? Just tax everything at 20% right? Let’s include children's clothes. Only fair | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money Not according to the Charity Commission who grant and monitor charity status. Also you have fallen into the trap if treating them all like one bug homogenous whole. They are not all the same. I didn't. I just didn't say "most" in my post. Most are though according to reports. So to get charity status which comes with many benefits they have to offer benefits to the local community...so maybe offer a bursary to someone who can't afford the fees or invite schools from the area to watch them play on their sports field for the afternoon....good gig if you can get it
“Most” implies “majority” which is not the case.
I saw an article today that said 70%, which would be a majority "Link please as I don’t believe that. Would this be based on the same “research” Labour have used to develop this policy? You know, the completely baseless excuse for research? | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help?" You already asked this above and I already answered | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x So why don’t “we” pay VAT on private healthcare or insurance? Why don’t “we” pay VAT on university fees? " We should and I'm saying that after just paying to have orthopaedic surgery on my knee three weeks ago, by a robot of all things, like being operated on by Vauxhalls haha But like I said things change all the time and in this case it's private education. Mrs x | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x Then rebate those parents £7.5k per year as saving taxpayers that clearly means nothing
And VAT has never applied to education so nobody is getting a tax break because it has never been a thing!
If we are going to say “Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything.” Then why are some things still exempt? Why are some things in a different VAT rate? Just tax everything at 20% right? Let’s include children's clothes. Only fair "If this was a cut in income tax you wouldn't be saying this, change would be ok then but because it affects something you care about you passionately protest it. It's happening and nothing we say here matters one jot. Mrs x | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x Applying VAT across the board would make necessities more expensive for everyone, impacting mainly those with lower incomes who spend a higher percentage on essentials, are you happy for that to be the policy? I believe a tax policy should balance revenue needs with impact, not blindly tax every choice without considering how it affects the cost of living or how removing a tax saves the government and ultimately the tax payer money purely to satisfy an ideology of everyone should pay the government money if they buy something. So if anyone should get a tax break it should be lower income parents, that's exactly what I'm saying. By not having to pay a tax on this purchase it appears to be only the wealthy that benefit from the system. And they have a choice where to send their kids whilst poorer parents don't. It's this perceived inequality that gives rise to the apathy amongst the rest of the population. It doesn't SEEM fair, Mrs x I simply can’t agree with this ‘cake and eat it’ philosophy. It’s not about favouring one group over another but about creating a system that considers the broader impact on society. When certain services are exempt from VAT, it’s often because they provide a public benefit or reduce pressure on government resources, which ultimately benefits everyone. Fairness isn’t just about taxing every choice but recognising where exemptions actually make economic sense.So when you can give a fiscal lift to those that actually need it? Is that what you mean? Mrs x Exemptions are meant to create benefits where they have the most impact. Removing VAT on targeted areas eases pressure on public resources and reduces costs across the board, not just for one group. The value lies in strategic exemptions that drive positive effects throughout the economy.But that doesn't help the individuals that need the help. The system is designed to keep wealth with the wealthy. It's not FAIR, and isn't perceived as FAIR by the majority. Those that only have choices about having toast or pushing out the boat to have beans on toast don't care about the Hooray Henry's having to cut back on Yoga and their Sushi so they can afford to send little Tarquin to the school of their choice. Mrs x" It seems like you’re focusing on extremes rather than looking at the broader impacts. Not everyone opting for private services is wealthy or out of touch. A fairer, more balanced perspective would recognise that strategic exemptions provide benefits that support everyone, rather than boxing everything into a one-size fits all approach that ultimately serves only the ideologue, not the people. | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money Not according to the Charity Commission who grant and monitor charity status. Also you have fallen into the trap if treating them all like one bug homogenous whole. They are not all the same. I didn't. I just didn't say "most" in my post. Most are though according to reports. So to get charity status which comes with many benefits they have to offer benefits to the local community...so maybe offer a bursary to someone who can't afford the fees or invite schools from the area to watch them play on their sports field for the afternoon....good gig if you can get it
“Most” implies “majority” which is not the case.
I saw an article today that said 70%, which would be a majority
Link please as I don’t believe that. Would this be based on the same “research” Labour have used to develop this policy? You know, the completely baseless excuse for research?"I can't put the link in but if you google "According to the Independent Schools Council (ISC), 70% of its member schools in the UK have charitable status:" you will find what is said. Is this the same ISC that you mention in your header? | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x Applying VAT across the board would make necessities more expensive for everyone, impacting mainly those with lower incomes who spend a higher percentage on essentials, are you happy for that to be the policy? I believe a tax policy should balance revenue needs with impact, not blindly tax every choice without considering how it affects the cost of living or how removing a tax saves the government and ultimately the tax payer money purely to satisfy an ideology of everyone should pay the government money if they buy something. So if anyone should get a tax break it should be lower income parents, that's exactly what I'm saying. By not having to pay a tax on this purchase it appears to be only the wealthy that benefit from the system. And they have a choice where to send their kids whilst poorer parents don't. It's this perceived inequality that gives rise to the apathy amongst the rest of the population. It doesn't SEEM fair, Mrs x I simply can’t agree with this ‘cake and eat it’ philosophy. It’s not about favouring one group over another but about creating a system that considers the broader impact on society. When certain services are exempt from VAT, it’s often because they provide a public benefit or reduce pressure on government resources, which ultimately benefits everyone. Fairness isn’t just about taxing every choice but recognising where exemptions actually make economic sense.So when you can give a fiscal lift to those that actually need it? Is that what you mean? Mrs x Exemptions are meant to create benefits where they have the most impact. Removing VAT on targeted areas eases pressure on public resources and reduces costs across the board, not just for one group. The value lies in strategic exemptions that drive positive effects throughout the economy.But that doesn't help the individuals that need the help. The system is designed to keep wealth with the wealthy. It's not FAIR, and isn't perceived as FAIR by the majority. Those that only have choices about having toast or pushing out the boat to have beans on toast don't care about the Hooray Henry's having to cut back on Yoga and their Sushi so they can afford to send little Tarquin to the school of their choice. Mrs x It seems like you’re focusing on extremes rather than looking at the broader impacts. Not everyone opting for private services is wealthy or out of touch. A fairer, more balanced perspective would recognise that strategic exemptions provide benefits that support everyone, rather than boxing everything into a one-size fits all approach that ultimately serves only the ideologue, not the people." So how does not paying VAT on this service support everyone? Redirecting the money raised to uplift education of the masses supports many more people than those who will have to spend tax on something they chose to purchase. That seems much FAIRER to the majority of the population I'd imagine. Mrs x | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? You already asked this above and I already answered "To be fair it looked like you didn't so why I asked again, but no matter, you don't have to answer | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x Applying VAT across the board would make necessities more expensive for everyone, impacting mainly those with lower incomes who spend a higher percentage on essentials, are you happy for that to be the policy? I believe a tax policy should balance revenue needs with impact, not blindly tax every choice without considering how it affects the cost of living or how removing a tax saves the government and ultimately the tax payer money purely to satisfy an ideology of everyone should pay the government money if they buy something. So if anyone should get a tax break it should be lower income parents, that's exactly what I'm saying. By not having to pay a tax on this purchase it appears to be only the wealthy that benefit from the system. And they have a choice where to send their kids whilst poorer parents don't. It's this perceived inequality that gives rise to the apathy amongst the rest of the population. It doesn't SEEM fair, Mrs x I simply can’t agree with this ‘cake and eat it’ philosophy. It’s not about favouring one group over another but about creating a system that considers the broader impact on society. When certain services are exempt from VAT, it’s often because they provide a public benefit or reduce pressure on government resources, which ultimately benefits everyone. Fairness isn’t just about taxing every choice but recognising where exemptions actually make economic sense.So when you can give a fiscal lift to those that actually need it? Is that what you mean? Mrs x Exemptions are meant to create benefits where they have the most impact. Removing VAT on targeted areas eases pressure on public resources and reduces costs across the board, not just for one group. The value lies in strategic exemptions that drive positive effects throughout the economy.But that doesn't help the individuals that need the help. The system is designed to keep wealth with the wealthy. It's not FAIR, and isn't perceived as FAIR by the majority. Those that only have choices about having toast or pushing out the boat to have beans on toast don't care about the Hooray Henry's having to cut back on Yoga and their Sushi so they can afford to send little Tarquin to the school of their choice. Mrs x It seems like you’re focusing on extremes rather than looking at the broader impacts. Not everyone opting for private services is wealthy or out of touch. A fairer, more balanced perspective would recognise that strategic exemptions provide benefits that support everyone, rather than boxing everything into a one-size fits all approach that ultimately serves only the ideologue, not the people." Agreed. @Norty I cannot distinguish when you actually mean something you post on this topic or when you are simply playing Devil’s Advocate, but what is disappointing with the argument you are making is the myopic focus on rich people when it has been established over many weeks of debate that the impact of this VAT charge will not be felt by the rich but by the middle incomes struggling to pay, the lower incomes on bursaries, the SEN kids with no EHCP, the performing arts kids (think Billy Elliot), faith school students. And the impact will be felt beyond the school gates as these “not charities, businesses” stop acting charitably and start charging state schools for access to facilities, and reduce/remove partnership activity. | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? You already asked this above and I already answered
To be fair it looked like you didn't so why I asked again, but no matter, you don't have to answer "Your question needs reframing because a) I was opposed to austerity and have already said a 1p increase in all income tax brackets would be fairer and b) clearly I think independent schools (or rather the parents paying the fees into the schools) ARE paying their fair share (by saving taxpayers £4.5bn a year on tje education budget). | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money Not according to the Charity Commission who grant and monitor charity status. Also you have fallen into the trap if treating them all like one bug homogenous whole. They are not all the same. I didn't. I just didn't say "most" in my post. Most are though according to reports. So to get charity status which comes with many benefits they have to offer benefits to the local community...so maybe offer a bursary to someone who can't afford the fees or invite schools from the area to watch them play on their sports field for the afternoon....good gig if you can get it
“Most” implies “majority” which is not the case.
I saw an article today that said 70%, which would be a majority
Link please as I don’t believe that. Would this be based on the same “research” Labour have used to develop this policy? You know, the completely baseless excuse for research?
I can't put the link in but if you google "According to the Independent Schools Council (ISC), 70% of its member schools in the UK have charitable status:" you will find what is said.
Is this the same ISC that you mention in your header?
"Ok we “might” be talking at cross purposes but I took your meaning to be that the majority are NOT charities or not REALLY charities (hence me replying the Charity Commission are happy they ARE charities). So yes the majority are charities… “The ISC 2022 Census found that 70% of responding schools had charitable status.1 Looking at the sector as a whole, the Department for Education has recently estimated that half of all independent schools in England are charitable.2 All mainstream independent schools in Scotland are charitable or have connected charitable foundation. All independent schools which are members of the Scottish Council of Independent Schools (SCIS) are charities. Similar estimates are not available for Wales. Accordingly, we are responding to the Committee’s call for evidence in relation to charitable tax reliefs – and specifically those available to some independent schools.” That is taken from Parliament Library. | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x Applying VAT across the board would make necessities more expensive for everyone, impacting mainly those with lower incomes who spend a higher percentage on essentials, are you happy for that to be the policy? I believe a tax policy should balance revenue needs with impact, not blindly tax every choice without considering how it affects the cost of living or how removing a tax saves the government and ultimately the tax payer money purely to satisfy an ideology of everyone should pay the government money if they buy something. So if anyone should get a tax break it should be lower income parents, that's exactly what I'm saying. By not having to pay a tax on this purchase it appears to be only the wealthy that benefit from the system. And they have a choice where to send their kids whilst poorer parents don't. It's this perceived inequality that gives rise to the apathy amongst the rest of the population. It doesn't SEEM fair, Mrs x I simply can’t agree with this ‘cake and eat it’ philosophy. It’s not about favouring one group over another but about creating a system that considers the broader impact on society. When certain services are exempt from VAT, it’s often because they provide a public benefit or reduce pressure on government resources, which ultimately benefits everyone. Fairness isn’t just about taxing every choice but recognising where exemptions actually make economic sense.So when you can give a fiscal lift to those that actually need it? Is that what you mean? Mrs x Exemptions are meant to create benefits where they have the most impact. Removing VAT on targeted areas eases pressure on public resources and reduces costs across the board, not just for one group. The value lies in strategic exemptions that drive positive effects throughout the economy.But that doesn't help the individuals that need the help. The system is designed to keep wealth with the wealthy. It's not FAIR, and isn't perceived as FAIR by the majority. Those that only have choices about having toast or pushing out the boat to have beans on toast don't care about the Hooray Henry's having to cut back on Yoga and their Sushi so they can afford to send little Tarquin to the school of their choice. Mrs x It seems like you’re focusing on extremes rather than looking at the broader impacts. Not everyone opting for private services is wealthy or out of touch. A fairer, more balanced perspective would recognise that strategic exemptions provide benefits that support everyone, rather than boxing everything into a one-size fits all approach that ultimately serves only the ideologue, not the people.So how does not paying VAT on this service support everyone? Redirecting the money raised to uplift education of the masses supports many more people than those who will have to spend tax on something they chose to purchase. That seems much FAIRER to the majority of the population I'd imagine. Mrs x" You know my reluctance to repeat myself… The last thing I will say on this. I can see your point of view but I can also see other points too. On balance how I have explained this punitive measure and how not introducing it offers a better outcome for more people is my final thoughts. | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x Applying VAT across the board would make necessities more expensive for everyone, impacting mainly those with lower incomes who spend a higher percentage on essentials, are you happy for that to be the policy? I believe a tax policy should balance revenue needs with impact, not blindly tax every choice without considering how it affects the cost of living or how removing a tax saves the government and ultimately the tax payer money purely to satisfy an ideology of everyone should pay the government money if they buy something. So if anyone should get a tax break it should be lower income parents, that's exactly what I'm saying. By not having to pay a tax on this purchase it appears to be only the wealthy that benefit from the system. And they have a choice where to send their kids whilst poorer parents don't. It's this perceived inequality that gives rise to the apathy amongst the rest of the population. It doesn't SEEM fair, Mrs x I simply can’t agree with this ‘cake and eat it’ philosophy. It’s not about favouring one group over another but about creating a system that considers the broader impact on society. When certain services are exempt from VAT, it’s often because they provide a public benefit or reduce pressure on government resources, which ultimately benefits everyone. Fairness isn’t just about taxing every choice but recognising where exemptions actually make economic sense.So when you can give a fiscal lift to those that actually need it? Is that what you mean? Mrs x Exemptions are meant to create benefits where they have the most impact. Removing VAT on targeted areas eases pressure on public resources and reduces costs across the board, not just for one group. The value lies in strategic exemptions that drive positive effects throughout the economy.But that doesn't help the individuals that need the help. The system is designed to keep wealth with the wealthy. It's not FAIR, and isn't perceived as FAIR by the majority. Those that only have choices about having toast or pushing out the boat to have beans on toast don't care about the Hooray Henry's having to cut back on Yoga and their Sushi so they can afford to send little Tarquin to the school of their choice. Mrs x It seems like you’re focusing on extremes rather than looking at the broader impacts. Not everyone opting for private services is wealthy or out of touch. A fairer, more balanced perspective would recognise that strategic exemptions provide benefits that support everyone, rather than boxing everything into a one-size fits all approach that ultimately serves only the ideologue, not the people. Agreed. @Norty I cannot distinguish when you actually mean something you post on this topic or when you are simply playing Devil’s Advocate, but what is disappointing with the argument you are making is the myopic focus on rich people when it has been established over many weeks of debate that the impact of this VAT charge will not be felt by the rich but by the middle incomes struggling to pay, the lower incomes on bursaries, the SEN kids with no EHCP, the performing arts kids (think Billy Elliot), faith school students. And the impact will be felt beyond the school gates as these “not charities, businesses” stop acting charitably and start charging state schools for access to facilities, and reduce/remove partnership activity." It's a Devils Advocate kinda thing. Why should faith schools and hobby schools get, or expect special treatment? Get your faith to help with your kids school fees, religion is quite profitable I believe. As for hobby schools, why should anyone expect a handout so little Farqhuar can play the violin or little Billy dance? If they are that talented then the schools should help with their fees. It's their choice, either pay or don't the choice is very simple. You wouldn't advise someone to buy a house they couldn't afford or bankrupt themselves to buy the latest Bentley but you expect special privileges when paying school fees. If you can't afford it, you can't have it, simple. And that's how it will be perceived by the masses. Labour may have gotten this policy wrong, only time will tell but it's coming and there's nothing you or I can do about it. Mrs x | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x Applying VAT across the board would make necessities more expensive for everyone, impacting mainly those with lower incomes who spend a higher percentage on essentials, are you happy for that to be the policy? I believe a tax policy should balance revenue needs with impact, not blindly tax every choice without considering how it affects the cost of living or how removing a tax saves the government and ultimately the tax payer money purely to satisfy an ideology of everyone should pay the government money if they buy something. So if anyone should get a tax break it should be lower income parents, that's exactly what I'm saying. By not having to pay a tax on this purchase it appears to be only the wealthy that benefit from the system. And they have a choice where to send their kids whilst poorer parents don't. It's this perceived inequality that gives rise to the apathy amongst the rest of the population. It doesn't SEEM fair, Mrs x I simply can’t agree with this ‘cake and eat it’ philosophy. It’s not about favouring one group over another but about creating a system that considers the broader impact on society. When certain services are exempt from VAT, it’s often because they provide a public benefit or reduce pressure on government resources, which ultimately benefits everyone. Fairness isn’t just about taxing every choice but recognising where exemptions actually make economic sense.So when you can give a fiscal lift to those that actually need it? Is that what you mean? Mrs x Exemptions are meant to create benefits where they have the most impact. Removing VAT on targeted areas eases pressure on public resources and reduces costs across the board, not just for one group. The value lies in strategic exemptions that drive positive effects throughout the economy.But that doesn't help the individuals that need the help. The system is designed to keep wealth with the wealthy. It's not FAIR, and isn't perceived as FAIR by the majority. Those that only have choices about having toast or pushing out the boat to have beans on toast don't care about the Hooray Henry's having to cut back on Yoga and their Sushi so they can afford to send little Tarquin to the school of their choice. Mrs x It seems like you’re focusing on extremes rather than looking at the broader impacts. Not everyone opting for private services is wealthy or out of touch. A fairer, more balanced perspective would recognise that strategic exemptions provide benefits that support everyone, rather than boxing everything into a one-size fits all approach that ultimately serves only the ideologue, not the people. Agreed. @Norty I cannot distinguish when you actually mean something you post on this topic or when you are simply playing Devil’s Advocate, but what is disappointing with the argument you are making is the myopic focus on rich people when it has been established over many weeks of debate that the impact of this VAT charge will not be felt by the rich but by the middle incomes struggling to pay, the lower incomes on bursaries, the SEN kids with no EHCP, the performing arts kids (think Billy Elliot), faith school students. And the impact will be felt beyond the school gates as these “not charities, businesses” stop acting charitably and start charging state schools for access to facilities, and reduce/remove partnership activity.It's a Devils Advocate kinda thing. Why should faith schools and hobby schools get, or expect special treatment? Get your faith to help with your kids school fees, religion is quite profitable I believe. As for hobby schools, why should anyone expect a handout so little Farqhuar can play the violin or little Billy dance? If they are that talented then the schools should help with their fees. It's their choice, either pay or don't the choice is very simple. You wouldn't advise someone to buy a house they couldn't afford or bankrupt themselves to buy the latest Bentley but you expect special privileges when paying school fees. If you can't afford it, you can't have it, simple. And that's how it will be perceived by the masses. Labour may have gotten this policy wrong, only time will tell but it's coming and there's nothing you or I can do about it. Mrs x" How sad that this Devil’s Advocate argument thinks the performing arts are “hobbies” rather than an enrichment of society and culture. What a dull world we will live in when all that matters is academics! Oh and Billy Elliot was the son of a miner who received a bursary. Let’s take away that chance shall we and keep the arts as the preserve of the rich! | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money Not according to the Charity Commission who grant and monitor charity status. Also you have fallen into the trap if treating them all like one bug homogenous whole. They are not all the same. I didn't. I just didn't say "most" in my post. Most are though according to reports. So to get charity status which comes with many benefits they have to offer benefits to the local community...so maybe offer a bursary to someone who can't afford the fees or invite schools from the area to watch them play on their sports field for the afternoon....good gig if you can get it
“Most” implies “majority” which is not the case.
I saw an article today that said 70%, which would be a majority
Link please as I don’t believe that. Would this be based on the same “research” Labour have used to develop this policy? You know, the completely baseless excuse for research?
I can't put the link in but if you google "According to the Independent Schools Council (ISC), 70% of its member schools in the UK have charitable status:" you will find what is said.
Is this the same ISC that you mention in your header?
Ok we “might” be talking at cross purposes but I took your meaning to be that the majority are NOT charities or not REALLY charities (hence me replying the Charity Commission are happy they ARE charities).
So yes the majority are charities…
“The ISC 2022 Census found that 70% of responding schools had charitable status.1 Looking at the sector as a whole, the Department for Education has recently estimated that half of all independent schools in England are charitable.2 All mainstream independent schools in Scotland are charitable or have connected charitable foundation. All independent schools which are members of the Scottish Council of Independent Schools (SCIS) are charities. Similar estimates are not available for Wales. Accordingly, we are responding to the Committee’s call for evidence in relation to charitable tax reliefs – and specifically those available to some independent schools.”
That is taken from Parliament Library."No we were not talking at cross purposes.I was clear when I said 70 % makes a majority and that I was talking about the charitable schools and the benefits they get. | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money Not according to the Charity Commission who grant and monitor charity status. Also you have fallen into the trap if treating them all like one bug homogenous whole. They are not all the same. I didn't. I just didn't say "most" in my post. Most are though according to reports. So to get charity status which comes with many benefits they have to offer benefits to the local community...so maybe offer a bursary to someone who can't afford the fees or invite schools from the area to watch them play on their sports field for the afternoon....good gig if you can get it
“Most” implies “majority” which is not the case.
I saw an article today that said 70%, which would be a majority
Link please as I don’t believe that. Would this be based on the same “research” Labour have used to develop this policy? You know, the completely baseless excuse for research?
I can't put the link in but if you google "According to the Independent Schools Council (ISC), 70% of its member schools in the UK have charitable status:" you will find what is said.
Is this the same ISC that you mention in your header?
Ok we “might” be talking at cross purposes but I took your meaning to be that the majority are NOT charities or not REALLY charities (hence me replying the Charity Commission are happy they ARE charities).
So yes the majority are charities…
“The ISC 2022 Census found that 70% of responding schools had charitable status.1 Looking at the sector as a whole, the Department for Education has recently estimated that half of all independent schools in England are charitable.2 All mainstream independent schools in Scotland are charitable or have connected charitable foundation. All independent schools which are members of the Scottish Council of Independent Schools (SCIS) are charities. Similar estimates are not available for Wales. Accordingly, we are responding to the Committee’s call for evidence in relation to charitable tax reliefs – and specifically those available to some independent schools.”
That is taken from Parliament Library.
No we were not talking at cross purposes.I was clear when I said 70 % makes a majority and that I was talking about the charitable schools and the benefits they get.
"In which case I misunderstood the point you were making which appeared to be that you were challenging whether they are really charities. I think they are and so does the Charity Commission. The Labour Govt thinks they are not and is from January treating them as businesses. | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x Applying VAT across the board would make necessities more expensive for everyone, impacting mainly those with lower incomes who spend a higher percentage on essentials, are you happy for that to be the policy? I believe a tax policy should balance revenue needs with impact, not blindly tax every choice without considering how it affects the cost of living or how removing a tax saves the government and ultimately the tax payer money purely to satisfy an ideology of everyone should pay the government money if they buy something. So if anyone should get a tax break it should be lower income parents, that's exactly what I'm saying. By not having to pay a tax on this purchase it appears to be only the wealthy that benefit from the system. And they have a choice where to send their kids whilst poorer parents don't. It's this perceived inequality that gives rise to the apathy amongst the rest of the population. It doesn't SEEM fair, Mrs x I simply can’t agree with this ‘cake and eat it’ philosophy. It’s not about favouring one group over another but about creating a system that considers the broader impact on society. When certain services are exempt from VAT, it’s often because they provide a public benefit or reduce pressure on government resources, which ultimately benefits everyone. Fairness isn’t just about taxing every choice but recognising where exemptions actually make economic sense.So when you can give a fiscal lift to those that actually need it? Is that what you mean? Mrs x Exemptions are meant to create benefits where they have the most impact. Removing VAT on targeted areas eases pressure on public resources and reduces costs across the board, not just for one group. The value lies in strategic exemptions that drive positive effects throughout the economy.But that doesn't help the individuals that need the help. The system is designed to keep wealth with the wealthy. It's not FAIR, and isn't perceived as FAIR by the majority. Those that only have choices about having toast or pushing out the boat to have beans on toast don't care about the Hooray Henry's having to cut back on Yoga and their Sushi so they can afford to send little Tarquin to the school of their choice. Mrs x It seems like you’re focusing on extremes rather than looking at the broader impacts. Not everyone opting for private services is wealthy or out of touch. A fairer, more balanced perspective would recognise that strategic exemptions provide benefits that support everyone, rather than boxing everything into a one-size fits all approach that ultimately serves only the ideologue, not the people. Agreed. @Norty I cannot distinguish when you actually mean something you post on this topic or when you are simply playing Devil’s Advocate, but what is disappointing with the argument you are making is the myopic focus on rich people when it has been established over many weeks of debate that the impact of this VAT charge will not be felt by the rich but by the middle incomes struggling to pay, the lower incomes on bursaries, the SEN kids with no EHCP, the performing arts kids (think Billy Elliot), faith school students. And the impact will be felt beyond the school gates as these “not charities, businesses” stop acting charitably and start charging state schools for access to facilities, and reduce/remove partnership activity.It's a Devils Advocate kinda thing. Why should faith schools and hobby schools get, or expect special treatment? Get your faith to help with your kids school fees, religion is quite profitable I believe. As for hobby schools, why should anyone expect a handout so little Farqhuar can play the violin or little Billy dance? If they are that talented then the schools should help with their fees. It's their choice, either pay or don't the choice is very simple. You wouldn't advise someone to buy a house they couldn't afford or bankrupt themselves to buy the latest Bentley but you expect special privileges when paying school fees. If you can't afford it, you can't have it, simple. And that's how it will be perceived by the masses. Labour may have gotten this policy wrong, only time will tell but it's coming and there's nothing you or I can do about it. Mrs x How sad that this Devil’s Advocate argument thinks the performing arts are “hobbies” rather than an enrichment of society and culture. What a dull world we will live in when all that matters is academics! Oh and Billy Elliot was the son of a miner who received a bursary. Let’s take away that chance shall we and keep the arts as the preserve of the rich!" So do sports stars have the same cultural relevance, darts players, snooker, motor sports, should these all benefit from not paying VAT fir their 'hobbies'... And as for Billy Elliot, I'm aware he got a bursary, to perform dance in a form that most ordinary citizens cannot afford to view at the highest level. Very enriching for the masses I don't think. It's happening, you just have to accept it, nothing you can do about it, nothing. Mrs x | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x Applying VAT across the board would make necessities more expensive for everyone, impacting mainly those with lower incomes who spend a higher percentage on essentials, are you happy for that to be the policy? I believe a tax policy should balance revenue needs with impact, not blindly tax every choice without considering how it affects the cost of living or how removing a tax saves the government and ultimately the tax payer money purely to satisfy an ideology of everyone should pay the government money if they buy something. So if anyone should get a tax break it should be lower income parents, that's exactly what I'm saying. By not having to pay a tax on this purchase it appears to be only the wealthy that benefit from the system. And they have a choice where to send their kids whilst poorer parents don't. It's this perceived inequality that gives rise to the apathy amongst the rest of the population. It doesn't SEEM fair, Mrs x I simply can’t agree with this ‘cake and eat it’ philosophy. It’s not about favouring one group over another but about creating a system that considers the broader impact on society. When certain services are exempt from VAT, it’s often because they provide a public benefit or reduce pressure on government resources, which ultimately benefits everyone. Fairness isn’t just about taxing every choice but recognising where exemptions actually make economic sense.So when you can give a fiscal lift to those that actually need it? Is that what you mean? Mrs x Exemptions are meant to create benefits where they have the most impact. Removing VAT on targeted areas eases pressure on public resources and reduces costs across the board, not just for one group. The value lies in strategic exemptions that drive positive effects throughout the economy.But that doesn't help the individuals that need the help. The system is designed to keep wealth with the wealthy. It's not FAIR, and isn't perceived as FAIR by the majority. Those that only have choices about having toast or pushing out the boat to have beans on toast don't care about the Hooray Henry's having to cut back on Yoga and their Sushi so they can afford to send little Tarquin to the school of their choice. Mrs x It seems like you’re focusing on extremes rather than looking at the broader impacts. Not everyone opting for private services is wealthy or out of touch. A fairer, more balanced perspective would recognise that strategic exemptions provide benefits that support everyone, rather than boxing everything into a one-size fits all approach that ultimately serves only the ideologue, not the people. Agreed. @Norty I cannot distinguish when you actually mean something you post on this topic or when you are simply playing Devil’s Advocate, but what is disappointing with the argument you are making is the myopic focus on rich people when it has been established over many weeks of debate that the impact of this VAT charge will not be felt by the rich but by the middle incomes struggling to pay, the lower incomes on bursaries, the SEN kids with no EHCP, the performing arts kids (think Billy Elliot), faith school students. And the impact will be felt beyond the school gates as these “not charities, businesses” stop acting charitably and start charging state schools for access to facilities, and reduce/remove partnership activity.It's a Devils Advocate kinda thing. Why should faith schools and hobby schools get, or expect special treatment? Get your faith to help with your kids school fees, religion is quite profitable I believe. As for hobby schools, why should anyone expect a handout so little Farqhuar can play the violin or little Billy dance? If they are that talented then the schools should help with their fees. It's their choice, either pay or don't the choice is very simple. You wouldn't advise someone to buy a house they couldn't afford or bankrupt themselves to buy the latest Bentley but you expect special privileges when paying school fees. If you can't afford it, you can't have it, simple. And that's how it will be perceived by the masses. Labour may have gotten this policy wrong, only time will tell but it's coming and there's nothing you or I can do about it. Mrs x How sad that this Devil’s Advocate argument thinks the performing arts are “hobbies” rather than an enrichment of society and culture. What a dull world we will live in when all that matters is academics! Oh and Billy Elliot was the son of a miner who received a bursary. Let’s take away that chance shall we and keep the arts as the preserve of the rich!" I’m afraid the devil’s advocate has raised one point I must agree with: this policy is coming, it provides a convenient soundbite for the future, and judging by the responses in this thread, it seems likely to gain future support as a win for the term. Your only hope to beat the devils advocate is Kemi Badenoch | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x Applying VAT across the board would make necessities more expensive for everyone, impacting mainly those with lower incomes who spend a higher percentage on essentials, are you happy for that to be the policy? I believe a tax policy should balance revenue needs with impact, not blindly tax every choice without considering how it affects the cost of living or how removing a tax saves the government and ultimately the tax payer money purely to satisfy an ideology of everyone should pay the government money if they buy something. So if anyone should get a tax break it should be lower income parents, that's exactly what I'm saying. By not having to pay a tax on this purchase it appears to be only the wealthy that benefit from the system. And they have a choice where to send their kids whilst poorer parents don't. It's this perceived inequality that gives rise to the apathy amongst the rest of the population. It doesn't SEEM fair, Mrs x I simply can’t agree with this ‘cake and eat it’ philosophy. It’s not about favouring one group over another but about creating a system that considers the broader impact on society. When certain services are exempt from VAT, it’s often because they provide a public benefit or reduce pressure on government resources, which ultimately benefits everyone. Fairness isn’t just about taxing every choice but recognising where exemptions actually make economic sense.So when you can give a fiscal lift to those that actually need it? Is that what you mean? Mrs x Exemptions are meant to create benefits where they have the most impact. Removing VAT on targeted areas eases pressure on public resources and reduces costs across the board, not just for one group. The value lies in strategic exemptions that drive positive effects throughout the economy.But that doesn't help the individuals that need the help. The system is designed to keep wealth with the wealthy. It's not FAIR, and isn't perceived as FAIR by the majority. Those that only have choices about having toast or pushing out the boat to have beans on toast don't care about the Hooray Henry's having to cut back on Yoga and their Sushi so they can afford to send little Tarquin to the school of their choice. Mrs x It seems like you’re focusing on extremes rather than looking at the broader impacts. Not everyone opting for private services is wealthy or out of touch. A fairer, more balanced perspective would recognise that strategic exemptions provide benefits that support everyone, rather than boxing everything into a one-size fits all approach that ultimately serves only the ideologue, not the people. Agreed. @Norty I cannot distinguish when you actually mean something you post on this topic or when you are simply playing Devil’s Advocate, but what is disappointing with the argument you are making is the myopic focus on rich people when it has been established over many weeks of debate that the impact of this VAT charge will not be felt by the rich but by the middle incomes struggling to pay, the lower incomes on bursaries, the SEN kids with no EHCP, the performing arts kids (think Billy Elliot), faith school students. And the impact will be felt beyond the school gates as these “not charities, businesses” stop acting charitably and start charging state schools for access to facilities, and reduce/remove partnership activity.It's a Devils Advocate kinda thing. Why should faith schools and hobby schools get, or expect special treatment? Get your faith to help with your kids school fees, religion is quite profitable I believe. As for hobby schools, why should anyone expect a handout so little Farqhuar can play the violin or little Billy dance? If they are that talented then the schools should help with their fees. It's their choice, either pay or don't the choice is very simple. You wouldn't advise someone to buy a house they couldn't afford or bankrupt themselves to buy the latest Bentley but you expect special privileges when paying school fees. If you can't afford it, you can't have it, simple. And that's how it will be perceived by the masses. Labour may have gotten this policy wrong, only time will tell but it's coming and there's nothing you or I can do about it. Mrs x How sad that this Devil’s Advocate argument thinks the performing arts are “hobbies” rather than an enrichment of society and culture. What a dull world we will live in when all that matters is academics! Oh and Billy Elliot was the son of a miner who received a bursary. Let’s take away that chance shall we and keep the arts as the preserve of the rich!So do sports stars have the same cultural relevance, darts players, snooker, motor sports, should these all benefit from not paying VAT fir their 'hobbies'... And as for Billy Elliot, I'm aware he got a bursary, to perform dance in a form that most ordinary citizens cannot afford to view at the highest level. Very enriching for the masses I don't think. It's happening, you just have to accept it, nothing you can do about it, nothing. Mrs x" Your point on sports is odd when you a) consider that your own son was in receipt of a sports scholarship and b) know that sports scholarships are a very real thing that have fed into sports people representing their country in a huge range of sports! Yeah let’s keep working class lads out of the arts. Don’t want the hoy paloy (sp?) mixing with the luvies now do we? Going forward only the rich kids will be able to be involved in the arts*, the poor kids need to go and get a proper trade and get their hands dirty. *imagine how narrow the focus of the arts would become if those involved only came from one strata of society! | |||
"I’m afraid the devil’s advocate has raised one point I must agree with: this policy is coming, it provides a convenient soundbite for the future, and judging by the responses in this thread, it seems likely to gain future support as a win for the term. Your only hope to beat the devils advocate is Kemi Badenoch" Yeah I know I am a proxy for King Canute (for now) but this flawed policy will not deliver what is claimed and WILL have a variety of negative impacts that at the moment Labour won’t acknowledge. It would be hilarious if 600,000 kids did suddenly enter the state system (they won’t, I know). Kemi Badenoch = shudder!  | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x Applying VAT across the board would make necessities more expensive for everyone, impacting mainly those with lower incomes who spend a higher percentage on essentials, are you happy for that to be the policy? I believe a tax policy should balance revenue needs with impact, not blindly tax every choice without considering how it affects the cost of living or how removing a tax saves the government and ultimately the tax payer money purely to satisfy an ideology of everyone should pay the government money if they buy something. So if anyone should get a tax break it should be lower income parents, that's exactly what I'm saying. By not having to pay a tax on this purchase it appears to be only the wealthy that benefit from the system. And they have a choice where to send their kids whilst poorer parents don't. It's this perceived inequality that gives rise to the apathy amongst the rest of the population. It doesn't SEEM fair, Mrs x I simply can’t agree with this ‘cake and eat it’ philosophy. It’s not about favouring one group over another but about creating a system that considers the broader impact on society. When certain services are exempt from VAT, it’s often because they provide a public benefit or reduce pressure on government resources, which ultimately benefits everyone. Fairness isn’t just about taxing every choice but recognising where exemptions actually make economic sense.So when you can give a fiscal lift to those that actually need it? Is that what you mean? Mrs x Exemptions are meant to create benefits where they have the most impact. Removing VAT on targeted areas eases pressure on public resources and reduces costs across the board, not just for one group. The value lies in strategic exemptions that drive positive effects throughout the economy.But that doesn't help the individuals that need the help. The system is designed to keep wealth with the wealthy. It's not FAIR, and isn't perceived as FAIR by the majority. Those that only have choices about having toast or pushing out the boat to have beans on toast don't care about the Hooray Henry's having to cut back on Yoga and their Sushi so they can afford to send little Tarquin to the school of their choice. Mrs x It seems like you’re focusing on extremes rather than looking at the broader impacts. Not everyone opting for private services is wealthy or out of touch. A fairer, more balanced perspective would recognise that strategic exemptions provide benefits that support everyone, rather than boxing everything into a one-size fits all approach that ultimately serves only the ideologue, not the people. Agreed. @Norty I cannot distinguish when you actually mean something you post on this topic or when you are simply playing Devil’s Advocate, but what is disappointing with the argument you are making is the myopic focus on rich people when it has been established over many weeks of debate that the impact of this VAT charge will not be felt by the rich but by the middle incomes struggling to pay, the lower incomes on bursaries, the SEN kids with no EHCP, the performing arts kids (think Billy Elliot), faith school students. And the impact will be felt beyond the school gates as these “not charities, businesses” stop acting charitably and start charging state schools for access to facilities, and reduce/remove partnership activity.It's a Devils Advocate kinda thing. Why should faith schools and hobby schools get, or expect special treatment? Get your faith to help with your kids school fees, religion is quite profitable I believe. As for hobby schools, why should anyone expect a handout so little Farqhuar can play the violin or little Billy dance? If they are that talented then the schools should help with their fees. It's their choice, either pay or don't the choice is very simple. You wouldn't advise someone to buy a house they couldn't afford or bankrupt themselves to buy the latest Bentley but you expect special privileges when paying school fees. If you can't afford it, you can't have it, simple. And that's how it will be perceived by the masses. Labour may have gotten this policy wrong, only time will tell but it's coming and there's nothing you or I can do about it. Mrs x How sad that this Devil’s Advocate argument thinks the performing arts are “hobbies” rather than an enrichment of society and culture. What a dull world we will live in when all that matters is academics! Oh and Billy Elliot was the son of a miner who received a bursary. Let’s take away that chance shall we and keep the arts as the preserve of the rich!So do sports stars have the same cultural relevance, darts players, snooker, motor sports, should these all benefit from not paying VAT fir their 'hobbies'... And as for Billy Elliot, I'm aware he got a bursary, to perform dance in a form that most ordinary citizens cannot afford to view at the highest level. Very enriching for the masses I don't think. It's happening, you just have to accept it, nothing you can do about it, nothing. Mrs x Your point on sports is odd when you a) consider that your own son was in receipt of a sports scholarship and b) know that sports scholarships are a very real thing that have fed into sports people representing their country in a huge range of sports! Yeah let’s keep working class lads out of the arts. Don’t want the hoy paloy (sp?) mixing with the luvies now do we? Going forward only the rich kids will be able to be involved in the arts*, the poor kids need to go and get a proper trade and get their hands dirty. *imagine how narrow the focus of the arts would become if those involved only came from one strata of society! " I'm not saying remove bursaries I'm just saying the opposite in fact. If they are good enough then the schools should pay for them to attend. If they aren't good enough then their parents should pay and if they have to they should pay VAT on this. It all boils down to it being their choice to send their kids to the schools they want. If a Billy Elliot makes it I'm all in favour of that but don't dress it up as being important for it's wider benefits of cultural enrichment for the whole of society because it really isn't. It's probably one of the most elitist things in our society and it's impact is minimal for the vast majority. They will be paying VAT come January, end of. Mrs x PS I'm glad I didn't have to pay VAT on my recent treatment, saved myself over 3.5k and I felt like this due to human nature. However if I had to pay this I would have done without complaint as it's my choice to go down this route. X | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x Applying VAT across the board would make necessities more expensive for everyone, impacting mainly those with lower incomes who spend a higher percentage on essentials, are you happy for that to be the policy? I believe a tax policy should balance revenue needs with impact, not blindly tax every choice without considering how it affects the cost of living or how removing a tax saves the government and ultimately the tax payer money purely to satisfy an ideology of everyone should pay the government money if they buy something. So if anyone should get a tax break it should be lower income parents, that's exactly what I'm saying. By not having to pay a tax on this purchase it appears to be only the wealthy that benefit from the system. And they have a choice where to send their kids whilst poorer parents don't. It's this perceived inequality that gives rise to the apathy amongst the rest of the population. It doesn't SEEM fair, Mrs x I simply can’t agree with this ‘cake and eat it’ philosophy. It’s not about favouring one group over another but about creating a system that considers the broader impact on society. When certain services are exempt from VAT, it’s often because they provide a public benefit or reduce pressure on government resources, which ultimately benefits everyone. Fairness isn’t just about taxing every choice but recognising where exemptions actually make economic sense.So when you can give a fiscal lift to those that actually need it? Is that what you mean? Mrs x Exemptions are meant to create benefits where they have the most impact. Removing VAT on targeted areas eases pressure on public resources and reduces costs across the board, not just for one group. The value lies in strategic exemptions that drive positive effects throughout the economy.But that doesn't help the individuals that need the help. The system is designed to keep wealth with the wealthy. It's not FAIR, and isn't perceived as FAIR by the majority. Those that only have choices about having toast or pushing out the boat to have beans on toast don't care about the Hooray Henry's having to cut back on Yoga and their Sushi so they can afford to send little Tarquin to the school of their choice. Mrs x It seems like you’re focusing on extremes rather than looking at the broader impacts. Not everyone opting for private services is wealthy or out of touch. A fairer, more balanced perspective would recognise that strategic exemptions provide benefits that support everyone, rather than boxing everything into a one-size fits all approach that ultimately serves only the ideologue, not the people. Agreed. @Norty I cannot distinguish when you actually mean something you post on this topic or when you are simply playing Devil’s Advocate, but what is disappointing with the argument you are making is the myopic focus on rich people when it has been established over many weeks of debate that the impact of this VAT charge will not be felt by the rich but by the middle incomes struggling to pay, the lower incomes on bursaries, the SEN kids with no EHCP, the performing arts kids (think Billy Elliot), faith school students. And the impact will be felt beyond the school gates as these “not charities, businesses” stop acting charitably and start charging state schools for access to facilities, and reduce/remove partnership activity.It's a Devils Advocate kinda thing. Why should faith schools and hobby schools get, or expect special treatment? Get your faith to help with your kids school fees, religion is quite profitable I believe. As for hobby schools, why should anyone expect a handout so little Farqhuar can play the violin or little Billy dance? If they are that talented then the schools should help with their fees. It's their choice, either pay or don't the choice is very simple. You wouldn't advise someone to buy a house they couldn't afford or bankrupt themselves to buy the latest Bentley but you expect special privileges when paying school fees. If you can't afford it, you can't have it, simple. And that's how it will be perceived by the masses. Labour may have gotten this policy wrong, only time will tell but it's coming and there's nothing you or I can do about it. Mrs x How sad that this Devil’s Advocate argument thinks the performing arts are “hobbies” rather than an enrichment of society and culture. What a dull world we will live in when all that matters is academics! Oh and Billy Elliot was the son of a miner who received a bursary. Let’s take away that chance shall we and keep the arts as the preserve of the rich!So do sports stars have the same cultural relevance, darts players, snooker, motor sports, should these all benefit from not paying VAT fir their 'hobbies'... And as for Billy Elliot, I'm aware he got a bursary, to perform dance in a form that most ordinary citizens cannot afford to view at the highest level. Very enriching for the masses I don't think. It's happening, you just have to accept it, nothing you can do about it, nothing. Mrs x Your point on sports is odd when you a) consider that your own son was in receipt of a sports scholarship and b) know that sports scholarships are a very real thing that have fed into sports people representing their country in a huge range of sports! Yeah let’s keep working class lads out of the arts. Don’t want the hoy paloy (sp?) mixing with the luvies now do we? Going forward only the rich kids will be able to be involved in the arts*, the poor kids need to go and get a proper trade and get their hands dirty. *imagine how narrow the focus of the arts would become if those involved only came from one strata of society! I'm not saying remove bursaries I'm just saying the opposite in fact. If they are good enough then the schools should pay for them to attend. If they aren't good enough then their parents should pay and if they have to they should pay VAT on this. It all boils down to it being their choice to send their kids to the schools they want. If a Billy Elliot makes it I'm all in favour of that but don't dress it up as being important for it's wider benefits of cultural enrichment for the whole of society because it really isn't. It's probably one of the most elitist things in our society and it's impact is minimal for the vast majority. They will be paying VAT come January, end of. Mrs x PS I'm glad I didn't have to pay VAT on my recent treatment, saved myself over 3.5k and I felt like this due to human nature. However if I had to pay this I would have done without complaint as it's my choice to go down this route. X" Wilfully missing the point though. You tell these schools they are not charities and stop giving them the benefits of being charities and start treating them as businesses then guess what happens next? They start acting like businesses and stop being charitable and stop offering bursaries. You can’t have it both ways. Are they charities YES/NO Independent schools, and very possibly performing arts schools, will become the preserve of the rich! | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x Applying VAT across the board would make necessities more expensive for everyone, impacting mainly those with lower incomes who spend a higher percentage on essentials, are you happy for that to be the policy? I believe a tax policy should balance revenue needs with impact, not blindly tax every choice without considering how it affects the cost of living or how removing a tax saves the government and ultimately the tax payer money purely to satisfy an ideology of everyone should pay the government money if they buy something. So if anyone should get a tax break it should be lower income parents, that's exactly what I'm saying. By not having to pay a tax on this purchase it appears to be only the wealthy that benefit from the system. And they have a choice where to send their kids whilst poorer parents don't. It's this perceived inequality that gives rise to the apathy amongst the rest of the population. It doesn't SEEM fair, Mrs x I simply can’t agree with this ‘cake and eat it’ philosophy. It’s not about favouring one group over another but about creating a system that considers the broader impact on society. When certain services are exempt from VAT, it’s often because they provide a public benefit or reduce pressure on government resources, which ultimately benefits everyone. Fairness isn’t just about taxing every choice but recognising where exemptions actually make economic sense.So when you can give a fiscal lift to those that actually need it? Is that what you mean? Mrs x Exemptions are meant to create benefits where they have the most impact. Removing VAT on targeted areas eases pressure on public resources and reduces costs across the board, not just for one group. The value lies in strategic exemptions that drive positive effects throughout the economy.But that doesn't help the individuals that need the help. The system is designed to keep wealth with the wealthy. It's not FAIR, and isn't perceived as FAIR by the majority. Those that only have choices about having toast or pushing out the boat to have beans on toast don't care about the Hooray Henry's having to cut back on Yoga and their Sushi so they can afford to send little Tarquin to the school of their choice. Mrs x It seems like you’re focusing on extremes rather than looking at the broader impacts. Not everyone opting for private services is wealthy or out of touch. A fairer, more balanced perspective would recognise that strategic exemptions provide benefits that support everyone, rather than boxing everything into a one-size fits all approach that ultimately serves only the ideologue, not the people. Agreed. @Norty I cannot distinguish when you actually mean something you post on this topic or when you are simply playing Devil’s Advocate, but what is disappointing with the argument you are making is the myopic focus on rich people when it has been established over many weeks of debate that the impact of this VAT charge will not be felt by the rich but by the middle incomes struggling to pay, the lower incomes on bursaries, the SEN kids with no EHCP, the performing arts kids (think Billy Elliot), faith school students. And the impact will be felt beyond the school gates as these “not charities, businesses” stop acting charitably and start charging state schools for access to facilities, and reduce/remove partnership activity.It's a Devils Advocate kinda thing. Why should faith schools and hobby schools get, or expect special treatment? Get your faith to help with your kids school fees, religion is quite profitable I believe. As for hobby schools, why should anyone expect a handout so little Farqhuar can play the violin or little Billy dance? If they are that talented then the schools should help with their fees. It's their choice, either pay or don't the choice is very simple. You wouldn't advise someone to buy a house they couldn't afford or bankrupt themselves to buy the latest Bentley but you expect special privileges when paying school fees. If you can't afford it, you can't have it, simple. And that's how it will be perceived by the masses. Labour may have gotten this policy wrong, only time will tell but it's coming and there's nothing you or I can do about it. Mrs x How sad that this Devil’s Advocate argument thinks the performing arts are “hobbies” rather than an enrichment of society and culture. What a dull world we will live in when all that matters is academics! Oh and Billy Elliot was the son of a miner who received a bursary. Let’s take away that chance shall we and keep the arts as the preserve of the rich!So do sports stars have the same cultural relevance, darts players, snooker, motor sports, should these all benefit from not paying VAT fir their 'hobbies'... And as for Billy Elliot, I'm aware he got a bursary, to perform dance in a form that most ordinary citizens cannot afford to view at the highest level. Very enriching for the masses I don't think. It's happening, you just have to accept it, nothing you can do about it, nothing. Mrs x Your point on sports is odd when you a) consider that your own son was in receipt of a sports scholarship and b) know that sports scholarships are a very real thing that have fed into sports people representing their country in a huge range of sports! Yeah let’s keep working class lads out of the arts. Don’t want the hoy paloy (sp?) mixing with the luvies now do we? Going forward only the rich kids will be able to be involved in the arts*, the poor kids need to go and get a proper trade and get their hands dirty. *imagine how narrow the focus of the arts would become if those involved only came from one strata of society! I'm not saying remove bursaries I'm just saying the opposite in fact. If they are good enough then the schools should pay for them to attend. If they aren't good enough then their parents should pay and if they have to they should pay VAT on this. It all boils down to it being their choice to send their kids to the schools they want. If a Billy Elliot makes it I'm all in favour of that but don't dress it up as being important for it's wider benefits of cultural enrichment for the whole of society because it really isn't. It's probably one of the most elitist things in our society and it's impact is minimal for the vast majority. They will be paying VAT come January, end of. Mrs x PS I'm glad I didn't have to pay VAT on my recent treatment, saved myself over 3.5k and I felt like this due to human nature. However if I had to pay this I would have done without complaint as it's my choice to go down this route. X" " If they are good enough the school should pay" . The school is funded by other parents . If it's " a business " with no charitable education status" why would other parents pay to subsidise ? You can't have it both ways.To my knowledge many independent schools are often underfunded but offer smaller class sizes which suits some children who may do less well elsewhere despite underfunding . It will be a sorry state when schools are not charitable due to vat regulations and fees rise. | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money PS I wouldn't have minded paying more tax and NI either to get services back that have been decimated over the last few years Me too. That would have been fair rather than targeted and punitive. Was this your view when we were in austerity with the last Govt, did you think this isn't fair as independant schools don't pay their share to help? Explain why education being exempt from VAT isn’t fair? If we want to talk about FAIR then explain why parents who have opted to not use the state system for their child, saving c.£7.5k per year per child for taxpayers (that is c.£4.5bn a year) and thereby relieving pressure on an overcrowded and underfunded state system by choosing to use their post tax net income to pay for independent school, should they now pay more tax on that? Explain why that is fair? The state system is underfunded. No argument. Parents who can afford pvt sch are already doing their bit by funding something they absolutely would use but are not. FAIR would have been a 1p Income Tax rise for all to pay for public services, not a punitive raid on one small group who already do plenty financially to help the state system.But what if you have no kids or no interest in sending kids to private school. FAIR is looking for those that want to send their kids to private school to pay for this. That's FAIR, Mrs x What’s fair about adding VAT to a service that ultimately saves taxpayers more than the VAT itself would raise? Fairness should mean respecting individual choice without imposing financial penalties on those who reduce the burden on state funded education.It's their choice nobody is forcing it on anyone. It could be seen as the wealthier parents are getting a break by not paying VAT on something. Everyone else pays VAT on things and these people have no choice about things like this. Everyone should pay VAT on everything, that's FAIR, Mrs x Your argument boils down to believing everyone should pay VAT on everything? Your approach treats all choices as the same, ignoring the fact that private education actually eases the demand on state funded schools. Penalising parents for a choice that ultimately saves the taxpayer money is more about enforcing an ideology than creating practical benefits. Shouldn’t fairness mean supporting options that reduce public costs, rather than taxing them out of reach?I'm playing Devils Advocate here. My son actually boarded at a school in Derbyshire, so I'm not against private education. What I'm doing is pointing out why there doesn't seem to be much sympathy for parents who have to pay more to send their kids to private schools. Most of the population see it as a , pardon the pun, a bit rich that parents who are wealthier than most are not paying tax on their choice of education for their children. It appears as if its just another example of the 'haves' being benefitted by the system. Tax should be paid on all things, by everyone on their purchases of anything. That's what most of the population think, it's just the 'rich' moaning about being taxed, when in fact it's their choice to do this. If they don't like it then don't do it. Mrs x Applying VAT across the board would make necessities more expensive for everyone, impacting mainly those with lower incomes who spend a higher percentage on essentials, are you happy for that to be the policy? I believe a tax policy should balance revenue needs with impact, not blindly tax every choice without considering how it affects the cost of living or how removing a tax saves the government and ultimately the tax payer money purely to satisfy an ideology of everyone should pay the government money if they buy something. So if anyone should get a tax break it should be lower income parents, that's exactly what I'm saying. By not having to pay a tax on this purchase it appears to be only the wealthy that benefit from the system. And they have a choice where to send their kids whilst poorer parents don't. It's this perceived inequality that gives rise to the apathy amongst the rest of the population. It doesn't SEEM fair, Mrs x I simply can’t agree with this ‘cake and eat it’ philosophy. It’s not about favouring one group over another but about creating a system that considers the broader impact on society. When certain services are exempt from VAT, it’s often because they provide a public benefit or reduce pressure on government resources, which ultimately benefits everyone. Fairness isn’t just about taxing every choice but recognising where exemptions actually make economic sense.So when you can give a fiscal lift to those that actually need it? Is that what you mean? Mrs x Exemptions are meant to create benefits where they have the most impact. Removing VAT on targeted areas eases pressure on public resources and reduces costs across the board, not just for one group. The value lies in strategic exemptions that drive positive effects throughout the economy.But that doesn't help the individuals that need the help. The system is designed to keep wealth with the wealthy. It's not FAIR, and isn't perceived as FAIR by the majority. Those that only have choices about having toast or pushing out the boat to have beans on toast don't care about the Hooray Henry's having to cut back on Yoga and their Sushi so they can afford to send little Tarquin to the school of their choice. Mrs x It seems like you’re focusing on extremes rather than looking at the broader impacts. Not everyone opting for private services is wealthy or out of touch. A fairer, more balanced perspective would recognise that strategic exemptions provide benefits that support everyone, rather than boxing everything into a one-size fits all approach that ultimately serves only the ideologue, not the people. Agreed. @Norty I cannot distinguish when you actually mean something you post on this topic or when you are simply playing Devil’s Advocate, but what is disappointing with the argument you are making is the myopic focus on rich people when it has been established over many weeks of debate that the impact of this VAT charge will not be felt by the rich but by the middle incomes struggling to pay, the lower incomes on bursaries, the SEN kids with no EHCP, the performing arts kids (think Billy Elliot), faith school students. And the impact will be felt beyond the school gates as these “not charities, businesses” stop acting charitably and start charging state schools for access to facilities, and reduce/remove partnership activity.It's a Devils Advocate kinda thing. Why should faith schools and hobby schools get, or expect special treatment? Get your faith to help with your kids school fees, religion is quite profitable I believe. As for hobby schools, why should anyone expect a handout so little Farqhuar can play the violin or little Billy dance? If they are that talented then the schools should help with their fees. It's their choice, either pay or don't the choice is very simple. You wouldn't advise someone to buy a house they couldn't afford or bankrupt themselves to buy the latest Bentley but you expect special privileges when paying school fees. If you can't afford it, you can't have it, simple. And that's how it will be perceived by the masses. Labour may have gotten this policy wrong, only time will tell but it's coming and there's nothing you or I can do about it. Mrs x How sad that this Devil’s Advocate argument thinks the performing arts are “hobbies” rather than an enrichment of society and culture. What a dull world we will live in when all that matters is academics! Oh and Billy Elliot was the son of a miner who received a bursary. Let’s take away that chance shall we and keep the arts as the preserve of the rich!So do sports stars have the same cultural relevance, darts players, snooker, motor sports, should these all benefit from not paying VAT fir their 'hobbies'... And as for Billy Elliot, I'm aware he got a bursary, to perform dance in a form that most ordinary citizens cannot afford to view at the highest level. Very enriching for the masses I don't think. It's happening, you just have to accept it, nothing you can do about it, nothing. Mrs x Your point on sports is odd when you a) consider that your own son was in receipt of a sports scholarship and b) know that sports scholarships are a very real thing that have fed into sports people representing their country in a huge range of sports! Yeah let’s keep working class lads out of the arts. Don’t want the hoy paloy (sp?) mixing with the luvies now do we? Going forward only the rich kids will be able to be involved in the arts*, the poor kids need to go and get a proper trade and get their hands dirty. *imagine how narrow the focus of the arts would become if those involved only came from one strata of society! I'm not saying remove bursaries I'm just saying the opposite in fact. If they are good enough then the schools should pay for them to attend. If they aren't good enough then their parents should pay and if they have to they should pay VAT on this. It all boils down to it being their choice to send their kids to the schools they want. If a Billy Elliot makes it I'm all in favour of that but don't dress it up as being important for it's wider benefits of cultural enrichment for the whole of society because it really isn't. It's probably one of the most elitist things in our society and it's impact is minimal for the vast majority. They will be paying VAT come January, end of. Mrs x PS I'm glad I didn't have to pay VAT on my recent treatment, saved myself over 3.5k and I felt like this due to human nature. However if I had to pay this I would have done without complaint as it's my choice to go down this route. X Wilfully missing the point though. You tell these schools they are not charities and stop giving them the benefits of being charities and start treating them as businesses then guess what happens next? They start acting like businesses and stop being charitable and stop offering bursaries. You can’t have it both ways. Are they charities YES/NO Independent schools, and very possibly performing arts schools, will become the preserve of the rich!" You said in another thread that these schools will benefit from the change from charity to business, yet you seem to miss the point that if that's the case what's to stop them acting charitable anyway, after all that would be the charitable thing to do. So normally you can't have it both ways but if you are right these schools seem to be doing so. Enjoying the benefits of being a business whilst removing charitable elements. To make it worse they are then passing on the full 20% to the parents. Not charitable at all. If you don't already know that these schools are already the preserve of the rich you are being naive. So these schools you have described are having their cake and eating it, they are now having someone else bake it and are charging them to deliver it. Different rules for the wealthy and the poor, that's how it really looks. Mrs x | |||
"You said in another thread that these schools will benefit from the change from charity to business, yet you seem to miss the point that if that's the case what's to stop them acting charitable anyway, after all that would be the charitable thing to do. So normally you can't have it both ways but if you are right these schools seem to be doing so. Enjoying the benefits of being a business whilst removing charitable elements. To make it worse they are then passing on the full 20% to the parents. Not charitable at all. If you don't already know that these schools are already the preserve of the rich you are being naive. So these schools you have described are having their cake and eating it, they are now having someone else bake it and are charging them to deliver it. Different rules for the wealthy and the poor, that's how it really looks. Mrs x" Take each point in turn: 1) That is not an accurate reflection of what I said or the situation. SOME schools are going to benefit from being able to reclaim VAT on capital expenditure projects back dated up to ten years. The big/wealthy schools lime Eton not the little independent currently just managing to stay afloat or the small faith school etc. Again, we need to stop looking at these schools as one big homogenous group. The reason the point on back dated VAT was raised is because the IFS “research” Labour based this policy on failed to take that into account meaning, once again, their figures for net amount raised are wrong! 2) Can’t believe anyone can argue that when you tell an organisation they are not a charity and remove the benefits they have for being a charity, you’d still expect them to act charitably! Why should they? More to the point why should the parents paying increased fees be willing to act charitably when they could instead insist the schools reduce fees by removing the proportion set aside for things like bursaries. 3) Eton is unbelievably passing on the full 20%. They represent all that IS bad about this sector (which is why they are always used as a proxy for criticism). I don’t know what all of the c.1400 schools are doing but I am hearing 10-12% being passed to parents is fairly average achieved by offsetting VAT reclaim etc. 4) The very existence of bursaries and scholarships means many/most of these schools are not the “preserve of the rich” but remove them and they become even more exclusive and lacking in diversity. There certainly needs to be more (and I have already said I would have a minimum threshold). So not naive at all. First hand experience! 5) If anyone thinks they are having their cake and eating it then I suggest their knowledge of the sector and issues being debated is cursory at best and three monkeys dogmatic politics of envy at worst! | |||
| |||
"PS I'm glad I didn't have to pay VAT on my recent treatment, saved myself over 3.5k and I felt like this due to human nature. However if I had to pay this I would have done without complaint as it's my choice to go down this route." And if that extra £3.5k meant you could not have afforded it and therefore your only choice was NHS? Or if it had been a multipart operation and you’d had the first few parts VAT free but now the rest of the operations would be subject to VAT that means you can’t continue with the operation stages and would have to now do the rest on the NHS and join the queue with no guarantees of an equally good service or outcomes? | |||
"Whatever the merits of the legal challenge, it's questionable whether special interest groups should have the power to challenge tax laws. I could set a dangerous precedent and make fiscal planning extremely complicated." Surely anyone should be able to challenge tax or any other law. A challenge to the law can often be advantageous in reinforcing a law, once a finding has been made (whether in favour or against) that can then be sighted for future cases. | |||
"Whatever the merits of the legal challenge, it's questionable whether special interest groups should have the power to challenge tax laws. I could set a dangerous precedent and make fiscal planning extremely complicated. Surely anyone should be able to challenge tax or any other law. A challenge to the law can often be advantageous in reinforcing a law, once a finding has been made (whether in favour or against) that can then be sighted for future cases. " Indeed and in this case tax policy has been set without sector consultation and based on a totally flawed piece of pseudo “research” with no impact assessment published. | |||
"Whatever the merits of the legal challenge, it's questionable whether special interest groups should have the power to challenge tax laws. I could set a dangerous precedent and make fiscal planning extremely complicated. Surely anyone should be able to challenge tax or any other law. A challenge to the law can often be advantageous in reinforcing a law, once a finding has been made (whether in favour or against) that can then be sighted for future cases. " The danger is abuse of legal process. The more wealthy and/or influential could frustrate implementation of taxes that were against their interests. I think this is one area where the government of the day needs to rule supreme. Then vote them out if you don't agree. | |||
"Whatever the merits of the legal challenge, it's questionable whether special interest groups should have the power to challenge tax laws. I could set a dangerous precedent and make fiscal planning extremely complicated. Surely anyone should be able to challenge tax or any other law. A challenge to the law can often be advantageous in reinforcing a law, once a finding has been made (whether in favour or against) that can then be sighted for future cases. The danger is abuse of legal process. The more wealthy and/or influential could frustrate implementation of taxes that were against their interests. I think this is one area where the government of the day needs to rule supreme. Then vote them out if you don't agree." I think the moment you can’t challenge a law you are on a slippery slope. Governments who pass laws should be able to defend and justify them, if not , they are laws that need amending. As I said previously, sometimes a challenge to the law, if unsuccessful , actually reinforces it. | |||
"Whatever the merits of the legal challenge, it's questionable whether special interest groups should have the power to challenge tax laws. I could set a dangerous precedent and make fiscal planning extremely complicated. Surely anyone should be able to challenge tax or any other law. A challenge to the law can often be advantageous in reinforcing a law, once a finding has been made (whether in favour or against) that can then be sighted for future cases. The danger is abuse of legal process. The more wealthy and/or influential could frustrate implementation of taxes that were against their interests. I think this is one area where the government of the day needs to rule supreme. Then vote them out if you don't agree." Environmental groups and groups that represent asylum seekers and refugees are forever taking governments to court to stop democratic policy in its tracks. Often these groups are well funded by a complex web of billionaires, charities, pressure groups etc. No reason to think any aspect of government policy should be different. If the court upholds the claimant’s complaint, then the government was acting outside of the law in the first place. | |||
"Whatever the merits of the legal challenge, it's questionable whether special interest groups should have the power to challenge tax laws. I could set a dangerous precedent and make fiscal planning extremely complicated. Surely anyone should be able to challenge tax or any other law. A challenge to the law can often be advantageous in reinforcing a law, once a finding has been made (whether in favour or against) that can then be sighted for future cases. The danger is abuse of legal process. The more wealthy and/or influential could frustrate implementation of taxes that were against their interests. I think this is one area where the government of the day needs to rule supreme. Then vote them out if you don't agree." Although if the challenge against the govt was in an area someone is negatively affected by, that person is more likely to support or be sympathetic to the legal action. | |||
"Whatever the merits of the legal challenge, it's questionable whether special interest groups should have the power to challenge tax laws. I could set a dangerous precedent and make fiscal planning extremely complicated. Surely anyone should be able to challenge tax or any other law. A challenge to the law can often be advantageous in reinforcing a law, once a finding has been made (whether in favour or against) that can then be sighted for future cases. The danger is abuse of legal process. The more wealthy and/or influential could frustrate implementation of taxes that were against their interests. I think this is one area where the government of the day needs to rule supreme. Then vote them out if you don't agree. Although if the challenge against the govt was in an area someone is negatively affected by, that person is more likely to support or be sympathetic to the legal action. " Indeed, and next we'll have farmers taking action, then company shareholders ....where does it end? | |||
"Whatever the merits of the legal challenge, it's questionable whether special interest groups should have the power to challenge tax laws. I could set a dangerous precedent and make fiscal planning extremely complicated. Surely anyone should be able to challenge tax or any other law. A challenge to the law can often be advantageous in reinforcing a law, once a finding has been made (whether in favour or against) that can then be sighted for future cases. The danger is abuse of legal process. The more wealthy and/or influential could frustrate implementation of taxes that were against their interests. I think this is one area where the government of the day needs to rule supreme. Then vote them out if you don't agree. Although if the challenge against the govt was in an area someone is negatively affected by, that person is more likely to support or be sympathetic to the legal action. Indeed, and next we'll have farmers taking action, then company shareholders ....where does it end?" As said above by another poster…this is a democracy not a dictatorship. If the enactment of govt policy into law is considered by some to be unlawful then the citizens of this country should have the right to challenge and hold govt to account. After all they are supposed to work for us. They govern on our behalf they do not rule us! | |||
"Whatever the merits of the legal challenge, it's questionable whether special interest groups should have the power to challenge tax laws. I could set a dangerous precedent and make fiscal planning extremely complicated. Surely anyone should be able to challenge tax or any other law. A challenge to the law can often be advantageous in reinforcing a law, once a finding has been made (whether in favour or against) that can then be sighted for future cases. The danger is abuse of legal process. The more wealthy and/or influential could frustrate implementation of taxes that were against their interests. I think this is one area where the government of the day needs to rule supreme. Then vote them out if you don't agree. Although if the challenge against the govt was in an area someone is negatively affected by, that person is more likely to support or be sympathetic to the legal action. Indeed, and next we'll have farmers taking action, then company shareholders ....where does it end?" Before the farmers take any action they need to see if the change in IHT actually affects them. Don’t believe the stories from the media and don’t be used by the small amount of very wealthy landowners owners, some of whom bought the land as a tax avoidance scheme in the first place. Anyway this is getting away from the OPs weekly rant about private schools.  | |||
"Whatever the merits of the legal challenge, it's questionable whether special interest groups should have the power to challenge tax laws. I could set a dangerous precedent and make fiscal planning extremely complicated. Surely anyone should be able to challenge tax or any other law. A challenge to the law can often be advantageous in reinforcing a law, once a finding has been made (whether in favour or against) that can then be sighted for future cases. The danger is abuse of legal process. The more wealthy and/or influential could frustrate implementation of taxes that were against their interests. I think this is one area where the government of the day needs to rule supreme. Then vote them out if you don't agree. Although if the challenge against the govt was in an area someone is negatively affected by, that person is more likely to support or be sympathetic to the legal action. Indeed, and next we'll have farmers taking action, then company shareholders ....where does it end? Before the farmers take any action they need to see if the change in IHT actually affects them. Don’t believe the stories from the media and don’t be used by the small amount of very wealthy landowners owners, some of whom bought the land as a tax avoidance scheme in the first place. Anyway this is getting away from the OPs weekly rant about private schools. "Can’t guarantee to keep up the weekly cadence, but I will do my best | |||
"Whatever the merits of the legal challenge, it's questionable whether special interest groups should have the power to challenge tax laws. I could set a dangerous precedent and make fiscal planning extremely complicated. Surely anyone should be able to challenge tax or any other law. A challenge to the law can often be advantageous in reinforcing a law, once a finding has been made (whether in favour or against) that can then be sighted for future cases. The danger is abuse of legal process. The more wealthy and/or influential could frustrate implementation of taxes that were against their interests. I think this is one area where the government of the day needs to rule supreme. Then vote them out if you don't agree. Although if the challenge against the govt was in an area someone is negatively affected by, that person is more likely to support or be sympathetic to the legal action. Indeed, and next we'll have farmers taking action, then company shareholders ....where does it end?" It ends in court, with a ruling. Things only get that far if there is enough of a case, spurious actions are rejected early in the legal process. As for your example of farmers, if the case was legitimate they would be entitled to challenge in court, as it is, having a beneficial tax situation reduced to a less beneficial tax, although still beneficial, would not get very far in the legal process, but should someone be able to waste their money pursuing that, absolutely they should. | |||
"I think the 20% Vat should be spent on services instead of a lesser bill for parents. Of course the schools could swallow up the cost as although they are registered charities, they are not really are they. They are a business making money Not according to the Charity Commission who grant and monitor charity status. Also you have fallen into the trap if treating them all like one bug homogenous whole. They are not all the same. I didn't. I just didn't say "most" in my post. Most are though according to reports. So to get charity status which comes with many benefits they have to offer benefits to the local community...so maybe offer a bursary to someone who can't afford the fees or invite schools from the area to watch them play on their sports field for the afternoon....good gig if you can get it
“Most” implies “majority” which is not the case.
I saw an article today that said 70%, which would be a majority
Link please as I don’t believe that. Would this be based on the same “research” Labour have used to develop this policy? You know, the completely baseless excuse for research?
I can't put the link in but if you google "According to the Independent Schools Council (ISC), 70% of its member schools in the UK have charitable status:" you will find what is said.
Is this the same ISC that you mention in your header?
Ok we “might” be talking at cross purposes but I took your meaning to be that the majority are NOT charities or not REALLY charities (hence me replying the Charity Commission are happy they ARE charities).
So yes the majority are charities…
“The ISC 2022 Census found that 70% of responding schools had charitable status.1 Looking at the sector as a whole, the Department for Education has recently estimated that half of all independent schools in England are charitable.2 All mainstream independent schools in Scotland are charitable or have connected charitable foundation. All independent schools which are members of the Scottish Council of Independent Schools (SCIS) are charities. Similar estimates are not available for Wales. Accordingly, we are responding to the Committee’s call for evidence in relation to charitable tax reliefs – and specifically those available to some independent schools.”
That is taken from Parliament Library.
No we were not talking at cross purposes.I was clear when I said 70 % makes a majority and that I was talking about the charitable schools and the benefits they get.
In which case I misunderstood the point you were making which appeared to be that you were challenging whether they are really charities. I think they are and so does the Charity Commission. The Labour Govt thinks they are not and is from January treating them as businesses."Which makes no sense to what you actually posted. I think you were hung up on the word "most" and "majority" as gotcha moments which then led to the sneering of where any information has come from and saying the post wasn't telling the truth and demanding a link. Even if a post is misunderstood it is not really helpful to debate this way as it might bring defensive answers which will then derail a thread to go a different way altogether which potentially means a Mod will come along to close it off as it has got out of hand. Back to the subject | |||
| |||
"You said in another thread that these schools will benefit from the change from charity to business, yet you seem to miss the point that if that's the case what's to stop them acting charitable anyway, after all that would be the charitable thing to do. So normally you can't have it both ways but if you are right these schools seem to be doing so. Enjoying the benefits of being a business whilst removing charitable elements. To make it worse they are then passing on the full 20% to the parents. Not charitable at all. If you don't already know that these schools are already the preserve of the rich you are being naive. So these schools you have described are having their cake and eating it, they are now having someone else bake it and are charging them to deliver it. Different rules for the wealthy and the poor, that's how it really looks. Mrs x Take each point in turn: 1) That is not an accurate reflection of what I said or the situation. SOME schools are going to benefit from being able to reclaim VAT on capital expenditure projects back dated up to ten years. The big/wealthy schools lime Eton not the little independent currently just managing to stay afloat or the small faith school etc. Again, we need to stop looking at these schools as one big homogenous group. The reason the point on back dated VAT was raised is because the IFS “research” Labour based this policy on failed to take that into account meaning, once again, their figures for net amount raised are wrong! 2) Can’t believe anyone can argue that when you tell an organisation they are not a charity and remove the benefits they have for being a charity, you’d still expect them to act charitably! Why should they? More to the point why should the parents paying increased fees be willing to act charitably when they could instead insist the schools reduce fees by removing the proportion set aside for things like bursaries. 3) Eton is unbelievably passing on the full 20%. They represent all that IS bad about this sector (which is why they are always used as a proxy for criticism). I don’t know what all of the c.1400 schools are doing but I am hearing 10-12% being passed to parents is fairly average achieved by offsetting VAT reclaim etc. 4) The very existence of bursaries and scholarships means many/most of these schools are not the “preserve of the rich” but remove them and they become even more exclusive and lacking in diversity. There certainly needs to be more (and I have already said I would have a minimum threshold). So not naive at all. First hand experience! 5) If anyone thinks they are having their cake and eating it then I suggest their knowledge of the sector and issues being debated is cursory at best and three monkeys dogmatic politics of envy at worst!" So before I respond I'm playing Devils Advocate, these are not necessarily my opinion, what I'm saying is how this issue may be perceived by the 93% of the population that doesn't send their kids to private school. As for your 1st point. I'm quoting something you said, not something I said or something I've said I've read. So when I say 'these schools' I just assumed you'd know those schools I was referring too, since you're a clever guy. Sorry for that assumption. I think you're 2nd point is a bit confused. You say that losing charitable status and the benefits of this would lead to these schools, if I can say these schools, ceasing to be charitable. I'm amazed you don't see the irony in this. Surely such institutions were already charitable before gaining charitable status, that's the only reason they were granted this status in the first place, surely. Any organisation becoming charitable to gain this status and subsequent benefits was obviously not charitable, only acting so in a self serving capacity and ergo is definitely not charitable in nature. So when I say that a charitable institution should remain charitable is not an unfair comment to make. Why should any organisation, based upon charitable ideals stop being so because of some adverse change in fiscal policy. It shouldn't affect their ideals or ethos. And going back to point 1 they may be better off, particularly all those larger schools who have borders. Point 3 is not really a point. Eton are passing on the full VAT onto their fees. They will surely, if what you say is correct, benefit from the change of charitable status by becoming a business. Something all the large boarding schools will do, I'd have thought. Point 4, well you seem to think that bursaries will go the way of the dinosaurs and if they do then these already 'elitist' schools will become more so. As Devils Advocate, I'm sure that bursaries are viewed by many, not as being a charitable benevolence from these schools but more of a cynical way to secure charitable status and it's benefits. This view may be gaining ground given the threats from some in this area that bursaries will have to be removed. You're either charitable or you're not. As for having your cake and eating it I obviously mentioned this in relation to the schools you quoted previously, those that may benefit from becoming a business, like Eton. This is how it's being seen. So Eton will not lose out financially from change to VAT because they are adding it to parents fees (CAKE). So the status quo prevails (EATING IT). They will benefit financially from using business practices in regards taxation (SOMEONE ELSE BAKING SAID CAKE), and the threat of removing bursaries (BEING PAID TO HAVE CAKE DELIVERED)... That's how it looks to many of the 93% who don't used private education. Eton probably won't be the only to do this, considering that when you really look at it, THESE SCHOOLS have not been genuinely charitable at all. So as for the three monkeys I'm not sure which one I am but sure you'll tell me. Mrs (DA) x | |||
"PS I'm glad I didn't have to pay VAT on my recent treatment, saved myself over 3.5k and I felt like this due to human nature. However if I had to pay this I would have done without complaint as it's my choice to go down this route. And if that extra £3.5k meant you could not have afforded it and therefore your only choice was NHS? Or if it had been a multipart operation and you’d had the first few parts VAT free but now the rest of the operations would be subject to VAT that means you can’t continue with the operation stages and would have to now do the rest on the NHS and join the queue with no guarantees of an equally good service or outcomes?" You're question is a moot point. I've already answered it. I said I'd pay the extra, without complaint. Why you are asking me what I'd do if I couldn't afford it, when we have discussed private matters relating to conversations in DMs about our individual circumstances is a little insensitive. You already know that I could afford it, that's why I did it. As to why, it suited me and my needs at the time. If I had to use the NHS, of course I would and I'd be grateful for the fantastic job they do. Let's not forget the NHS model is admired around the world. The benefits of going private is convenience, privacy, and choice. So I paid my money and took my choice. That's what you do. If you can't afford to then like in all aspects of life you cannot buy what you can't afford. My hubby is having one of his shoulders done next month. It's not the same as your description of the 'multipart' operation but it does contain multiple hospitals, one private, one NHS. So he is going private and will be put to sleep in a private hospital. Because of his other conditions, they cannot operate there due to a lack of an ICU. So he will be transported to a local NHS hospital and have his op there before being brought back to recovery in the private hospital. So it's not an issue for us using the NHS, it's just about convenience. Mrs x | |||
" It's not a bashing the Toffs thing, just like it's not been a 'pick on the poor' thing when it wasn't charged, but it just seems fair that everyone pays their fair share of tax. I know you don't agree. Mrs x If education is going to loose it’s vat exemption then surely it is ‘fair’ that all education is included, otherwise it is just a descriminatory thing. People choose to go to university so why not charge them vat, it’s the disparity that I question. It’s a bit like saying children’s clothing is vat exempt but not if you choose to buy from a high end source, cos if you’ve got the dosh to buy the expensive stuff you can afford to pay vat on it. It’s fairly plain to see that the policy is just an appeasement to the ‘wealthy bad, poor good’ mentality. Whether people agree or disagree with the policy at least be honest about its origins. " If we look at your argument, you seem to be advocating paying VAT on kids clothing as its only FAIR because there's VAT on adult clothing. Not sure that's a sensible point you are making. The reason there's been no VAT on education before is because it was illegal under Eurooean Law. So since Brexit VAT can now be charged on it and that's what Labour have chosen to do. So maybe those parents that voted Leave in the referendum should have chosen differently. Mrs x | |||
" It's not a bashing the Toffs thing, just like it's not been a 'pick on the poor' thing when it wasn't charged, but it just seems fair that everyone pays their fair share of tax. I know you don't agree. Mrs x If education is going to loose it’s vat exemption then surely it is ‘fair’ that all education is included, otherwise it is just a descriminatory thing. People choose to go to university so why not charge them vat, it’s the disparity that I question. It’s a bit like saying children’s clothing is vat exempt but not if you choose to buy from a high end source, cos if you’ve got the dosh to buy the expensive stuff you can afford to pay vat on it. It’s fairly plain to see that the policy is just an appeasement to the ‘wealthy bad, poor good’ mentality. Whether people agree or disagree with the policy at least be honest about its origins. If we look at your argument, you seem to be advocating paying VAT on kids clothing as its only FAIR because there's VAT on adult clothing. Not sure that's a sensible point you are making. The reason there's been no VAT on education before is because it was illegal under Eurooean Law. So since Brexit VAT can now be charged on it and that's what Labour have chosen to do. So maybe those parents that voted Leave in the referendum should have chosen differently. Mrs x" That is not the point I am making at all. I made no mention of adult clothing and did not make any comparison with adult clothing. I don’t know why you think I was making a comment about adult clothing. At no point did I ‘advocate’ putting VAT on children’s clothing. I was likening putting VAT on children’s clothing bought from highend outlets by people of wealth, but not putting VAT on children’s clothing bought from other sources to the VAT on education situation. As for your comment regarding VAT on education previously being not allowed due to EU rules and the Government have now decided that they wish to put VAT on education, they haven’t, they’ve decided to put VAT on a specific part of education. That is the point I was raising regarding disparity. They appear to have singled out a particular area of education provision , an area they knew would go down well with many of their core supporters. I don’t feel education is something that should be subject to VAT, whether it’s school age children or adults at universities or people in work trying to further their qualifications to enhance their job prospects, education at all levels is something that should only be encouraged. I should make it clear I have no mileage in this personally, I have no kids, educated or otherwise | |||
" It's not a bashing the Toffs thing, just like it's not been a 'pick on the poor' thing when it wasn't charged, but it just seems fair that everyone pays their fair share of tax. I know you don't agree. Mrs x If education is going to loose it’s vat exemption then surely it is ‘fair’ that all education is included, otherwise it is just a descriminatory thing. People choose to go to university so why not charge them vat, it’s the disparity that I question. It’s a bit like saying children’s clothing is vat exempt but not if you choose to buy from a high end source, cos if you’ve got the dosh to buy the expensive stuff you can afford to pay vat on it. It’s fairly plain to see that the policy is just an appeasement to the ‘wealthy bad, poor good’ mentality. Whether people agree or disagree with the policy at least be honest about its origins. If we look at your argument, you seem to be advocating paying VAT on kids clothing as its only FAIR because there's VAT on adult clothing. Not sure that's a sensible point you are making. The reason there's been no VAT on education before is because it was illegal under Eurooean Law. So since Brexit VAT can now be charged on it and that's what Labour have chosen to do. So maybe those parents that voted Leave in the referendum should have chosen differently. Mrs x That is not the point I am making at all. I made no mention of adult clothing and did not make any comparison with adult clothing. I don’t know why you think I was making a comment about adult clothing. At no point did I ‘advocate’ putting VAT on children’s clothing. I was likening putting VAT on children’s clothing bought from highend outlets by people of wealth, but not putting VAT on children’s clothing bought from other sources to the VAT on education situation. As for your comment regarding VAT on education previously being not allowed due to EU rules and the Government have now decided that they wish to put VAT on education, they haven’t, they’ve decided to put VAT on a specific part of education. That is the point I was raising regarding disparity. They appear to have singled out a particular area of education provision , an area they knew would go down well with many of their core supporters. I don’t feel education is something that should be subject to VAT, whether it’s school age children or adults at universities or people in work trying to further their qualifications to enhance their job prospects, education at all levels is something that should only be encouraged. I should make it clear I have no mileage in this personally, I have no kids, educated or otherwise "I don't think it has anything to do with being something to do with their supporters. They are already in power. I believe them when they say these funds will be used for the betterment of the vast majority of the school children in this country. I think that's what should be encouraged. Rather than benefitting an elitist, apartheid education system. The Brexit issue just made this decision possible. It is illegal to charge VAT on education under EU Law. As for you saying they've only put it on a specific part of education that's because everyone who attends University has to pay for their education, they don't have a choice about it but sending your child to a fee paying school is the choice of the parents. There's a difference. And it was made possible by Brexit. Mrs x | |||
| |||
"I think this Labour government really has very little interest or understanding of anything outside of its core vote, that is the public sector and trade unions. It has zero interest in business aside from having learnt to say the word “growth” and hope that something positive happens. Mixed with a good dollop of old fashioned Labour envy and class warfare. Focusing on the 20% at the expense of the 80% isn’t like to last very long. The local election results that I’ve seen since the GE suggest that Labours vote share is collapsing already. My guess is that the farmers will kick off big time soon. Hello there, I am afraid you are not living in the real world, labour have just won an election with a huge majority , they have a mandate from the country , a few disgruntled farmers won’t have much effect , the electorate have spoken Is that you Keir? Haven’t you got work to do before you knock off at 4? You need wake up, look outside your bubble, labour have a huge majority, they have a huge job to do, this is just the start, a few disgruntled farmers won’t effect their work, the electorate have spoken " I stand to be corrected, but didn't Labour actually receive fewer votes in total than they got in 2019 when Corbyn was in charge? So yes, they won an overwhelming majority not by converting anyone, but because Tory voters didn't vote at all. What Labour need to be careful of, is these mostly Tory voters will vote again, and as we all know, a protest vote can be a very powerful thing. | |||
"'The ISC has said the legal case will focus around claims of breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.' Which is laughable given that this demographic are OK with the Tories attempts to remove this particular legislation because it suits their agenda relating to immigration. So they want it gone to achieve that but they want to use it to achieve their aims here. Anyone else think this is massive hypocrisy?" Do you have any evidence that the people calling for withdrawal from the ECHR are the same people that are calling for no VAT on school fees? Or are you just lumping all of those you disagree with into one big demographic? | |||
"'The ISC has said the legal case will focus around claims of breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.' Which is laughable given that this demographic are OK with the Tories attempts to remove this particular legislation because it suits their agenda relating to immigration. So they want it gone to achieve that but they want to use it to achieve their aims here. Anyone else think this is massive hypocrisy? Do you have any evidence that the people calling for withdrawal from the ECHR are the same people that are calling for no VAT on school fees? Or are you just lumping all of those you disagree with into one big demographic?" Well I haven't spoken to everyone one of them, if that's what you mean, so there is some 'lumping' going on. But generally you have to be quite affluent to send your kids to private schools. Tory voters, if not elderly, are more affluent and so it's not totally out of the realms of possibility. Working class families, the tradition Labour supporters do not have the 6 figure salaries requited to send the children to private schools. I also am using the experience of sending my own child to private school as a border. Very rich parents with very Tory outlooks.. Mrs x | |||
| |||
"Why did the EU stop the UK from putting VAT on private school fees, when the UK was a member?" There is an Article prohibiting VAT on education, so as a result of Brexit the UK can now charge VAT on it. Mrs x | |||
"'The ISC has said the legal case will focus around claims of breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.' Which is laughable given that this demographic are OK with the Tories attempts to remove this particular legislation because it suits their agenda relating to immigration. So they want it gone to achieve that but they want to use it to achieve their aims here. Anyone else think this is massive hypocrisy?" "Do you have any evidence that the people calling for withdrawal from the ECHR are the same people that are calling for no VAT on school fees? Or are you just lumping all of those you disagree with into one big demographic?" "Well I haven't spoken to everyone one of them, if that's what you mean, so there is some 'lumping' going on. But generally you have to be quite affluent to send your kids to private schools. Tory voters, if not elderly, are more affluent and so it's not totally out of the realms of possibility. Working class families, the tradition Labour supporters do not have the 6 figure salaries requited to send the children to private schools. I also am using the experience of sending my own child to private school as a border. Very rich parents with very Tory outlooks.." Yes I can see that Tory voters are more likely to be sending their kids to non-state schools. But where do you get the idea that only Tories are against immigration? Keir Starmer can't stop making announcements about how he's going to "Smash the gangs"(tm), and how much money he's spending on doing that. Why do you think that those against immigration must be Tories? | |||
"Why did the EU stop the UK from putting VAT on private school fees, when the UK was a member?There is an Article prohibiting VAT on education, so as a result of Brexit the UK can now charge VAT on it. Mrs x" I see. So the restrictions on the UK regarding this policy are lifted since brexit, and has enabled the Labour government to take advantage. The change that some, including the government and some here, view as the best thing for the education system would not have happened had the UK still been a member. | |||
"Why did the EU stop the UK from putting VAT on private school fees, when the UK was a member?There is an Article prohibiting VAT on education, so as a result of Brexit the UK can now charge VAT on it. Mrs x I see. So the restrictions on the UK regarding this policy are lifted since brexit, and has enabled the Labour government to take advantage. The change that some, including the government and some here, view as the best thing for the education system would not have happened had the UK still been a member." Sorry not sure what you are actually saying, Mrs x | |||
"'The ISC has said the legal case will focus around claims of breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.' Which is laughable given that this demographic are OK with the Tories attempts to remove this particular legislation because it suits their agenda relating to immigration. So they want it gone to achieve that but they want to use it to achieve their aims here. Anyone else think this is massive hypocrisy? Do you have any evidence that the people calling for withdrawal from the ECHR are the same people that are calling for no VAT on school fees? Or are you just lumping all of those you disagree with into one big demographic? Well I haven't spoken to everyone one of them, if that's what you mean, so there is some 'lumping' going on. But generally you have to be quite affluent to send your kids to private schools. Tory voters, if not elderly, are more affluent and so it's not totally out of the realms of possibility. Working class families, the tradition Labour supporters do not have the 6 figure salaries requited to send the children to private schools. I also am using the experience of sending my own child to private school as a border. Very rich parents with very Tory outlooks.. Yes I can see that Tory voters are more likely to be sending their kids to non-state schools. But where do you get the idea that only Tories are against immigration? Keir Starmer can't stop making announcements about how he's going to "Smash the gangs"(tm), and how much money he's spending on doing that. Why do you think that those against immigration must be Tories?" Not saying every Tory is but just by looking at how immigration led parties like Reform have split the Tory vote, it's clear that Tories have this high on their agenda. You obviously disagree. Mrs x | |||
"Why did the EU stop the UK from putting VAT on private school fees, when the UK was a member?There is an Article prohibiting VAT on education, so as a result of Brexit the UK can now charge VAT on it. Mrs x I see. So the restrictions on the UK regarding this policy are lifted since brexit, and has enabled the Labour government to take advantage. The change that some, including the government and some here, view as the best thing for the education system would not have happened had the UK still been a member." That is correct. If we were still a member of the EU then this government would not have been able to make school fees subject to VAT and that is very clear. It is one of the benefits of Brexit - freedom to set one's own taxes. | |||
| |||
| |||
"EU law allows countries to exempt educational services from VAT and does not mandate adding it. EU member state’s own national legislation and tax policies are not compromised, and if you want to test this google EU countries that apply VAT to private education. " I did as you said in relation to private schools in the EU and the response is negative. Are you getting confused with other education providers than schools where VAT may be charged? | |||
"Why did the EU stop the UK from putting VAT on private school fees, when the UK was a member?There is an Article prohibiting VAT on education, so as a result of Brexit the UK can now charge VAT on it. Mrs x I see. So the restrictions on the UK regarding this policy are lifted since brexit, and has enabled the Labour government to take advantage. The change that some, including the government and some here, view as the best thing for the education system would not have happened had the UK still been a member. That is correct. If we were still a member of the EU then this government would not have been able to make school fees subject to VAT and that is very clear. It is one of the benefits of Brexit - freedom to set one's own taxes." Thank you. Far better explained than I managed | |||
| |||
"EU law allows countries to exempt educational services from VAT and does not mandate adding it. EU member state’s own national legislation and tax policies are not compromised, and if you want to test this google EU countries that apply VAT to private education. I did as you said in relation to private schools in the EU and the response is negative. Are you getting confused with other education providers than schools where VAT may be charged?" VAT, whether added or not to private education, is not something the EU controls because there is member state discretion which allows each member to apply taxes to domestic services. I should have been clearer in my “search Google,” my bad. However, no other country in the EU currently applies VAT on private school fees, which makes the UK decision unique and an outlier | |||
"EU law allows countries to exempt educational services from VAT and does not mandate adding it. EU member state’s own national legislation and tax policies are not compromised, and if you want to test this google EU countries that apply VAT to private education. I did as you said in relation to private schools in the EU and the response is negative. Are you getting confused with other education providers than schools where VAT may be charged? VAT, whether added or not to private education, is not something the EU controls because there is member state discretion which allows each member to apply taxes to domestic services. I should have been clearer in my “search Google,” my bad. However, no other country in the EU currently applies VAT on private school fees, which makes the UK decision unique and an outlier" No there was a long post on here explaining the EU VAT directive which prevents EU countries charging VAT on school fees. It seems to have dissappeared. We are no longer a member of the EU so I don't understand your comment about us being an outlier. One of the supposed advantages of Brexit is to allow us to control our taxes. I suspect that Tories are somewhat horrified that the first significant affect of this freedom is actually working against their beliefs but that's not relevant to this thread. | |||
"One of the supposed advantages of Brexit is to allow us to control our taxes. I suspect that Tories are somewhat horrified that the first significant affect of this freedom is actually working against their beliefs but that's not relevant to this thread." The first significant effect of this freedom was the removal of the 'tampon tax', which happened on day 1 of Brexit. | |||
"EU law allows countries to exempt educational services from VAT and does not mandate adding it. EU member state’s own national legislation and tax policies are not compromised, and if you want to test this google EU countries that apply VAT to private education. I did as you said in relation to private schools in the EU and the response is negative. Are you getting confused with other education providers than schools where VAT may be charged? VAT, whether added or not to private education, is not something the EU controls because there is member state discretion which allows each member to apply taxes to domestic services. I should have been clearer in my “search Google,” my bad. However, no other country in the EU currently applies VAT on private school fees, which makes the UK decision unique and an outlier No there was a long post on here explaining the EU VAT directive which prevents EU countries charging VAT on school fees. It seems to have dissappeared. We are no longer a member of the EU so I don't understand your comment about us being an outlier. One of the supposed advantages of Brexit is to allow us to control our taxes. I suspect that Tories are somewhat horrified that the first significant affect of this freedom is actually working against their beliefs but that's not relevant to this thread." We are an outlier in charging VAT on private schools, there really is only us doing it, counter to the rest of the EU, which in my opinion indicates that this government has got this badly wrong. On EU regulations: local member state direction applies to many areas, with local services falling into that category. There is also an exception for international schools and diplomatic fees, where VAT is typically not charged, as these services are not considered “local.” | |||
"EU law allows countries to exempt educational services from VAT and does not mandate adding it. EU member state’s own national legislation and tax policies are not compromised, and if you want to test this google EU countries that apply VAT to private education. I did as you said in relation to private schools in the EU and the response is negative. Are you getting confused with other education providers than schools where VAT may be charged? VAT, whether added or not to private education, is not something the EU controls because there is member state discretion which allows each member to apply taxes to domestic services. I should have been clearer in my “search Google,” my bad. However, no other country in the EU currently applies VAT on private school fees, which makes the UK decision unique and an outlier No there was a long post on here explaining the EU VAT directive which prevents EU countries charging VAT on school fees. It seems to have dissappeared. We are no longer a member of the EU so I don't understand your comment about us being an outlier. One of the supposed advantages of Brexit is to allow us to control our taxes. I suspect that Tories are somewhat horrified that the first significant affect of this freedom is actually working against their beliefs but that's not relevant to this thread. We are an outlier in charging VAT on private schools, there really is only us doing it, counter to the rest of the EU, which in my opinion indicates that this government has got this badly wrong. On EU regulations: local member state direction applies to many areas, with local services falling into that category. There is also an exception for international schools and diplomatic fees, where VAT is typically not charged, as these services are not considered “local.” " We are no longer in the EU. Your point is irrelevant. You can thank brexit | |||
"EU law allows countries to exempt educational services from VAT and does not mandate adding it. EU member state’s own national legislation and tax policies are not compromised, and if you want to test this google EU countries that apply VAT to private education. I did as you said in relation to private schools in the EU and the response is negative. Are you getting confused with other education providers than schools where VAT may be charged? VAT, whether added or not to private education, is not something the EU controls because there is member state discretion which allows each member to apply taxes to domestic services. I should have been clearer in my “search Google,” my bad. However, no other country in the EU currently applies VAT on private school fees, which makes the UK decision unique and an outlier No there was a long post on here explaining the EU VAT directive which prevents EU countries charging VAT on school fees. It seems to have dissappeared. We are no longer a member of the EU so I don't understand your comment about us being an outlier. One of the supposed advantages of Brexit is to allow us to control our taxes. I suspect that Tories are somewhat horrified that the first significant affect of this freedom is actually working against their beliefs but that's not relevant to this thread. We are an outlier in charging VAT on private schools, there really is only us doing it, counter to the rest of the EU, which in my opinion indicates that this government has got this badly wrong. On EU regulations: local member state direction applies to many areas, with local services falling into that category. There is also an exception for international schools and diplomatic fees, where VAT is typically not charged, as these services are not considered “local.” " I think what's being said is that since 2021 (brexit) the UK is no longer subject to EU rules and since that date has had the ability to decide if to introduce VAT or not. The previous clowns chose not to introduce it. This crop of clowns has taken advantage of not being subject to EU rules. That how I'm seeing it anyway | |||
" I think what's being said is that since 2021 (brexit) the UK is no longer subject to EU rules and since that date has had the ability to decide if to introduce VAT or not. The previous clowns chose not to introduce it. This crop of clowns has taken advantage of not being subject to EU rules. That how I'm seeing it anyway" You are exactly right although I wouldn't use the words clowns lol. Adding VAT to private schools fees has been a fixture of Labour's tax policy since 2017. Therefore its hardly come as a surprise now they are in government. When we were part of the EU we were subject to EU VAT directives which prevent VAT being added to private school fees. Of course since Brexit we no longer are. I haven't read the Withdrawal Agreement, but presumably it's silent on the issue. The Tories have always opposed VAT on private school fees although Michael Gove argued for it a few years ago. All political parties have policies we may or may not like, and the one that forms the government gets to enact them. Rather than whinging from the sidelines and scaremongering, grown-up opposition parties would try to reach accomodations with government. Unfortunately the leaderless Tories have yet to learn this, but Kemi Badenoch at least understands the point. We shall see. And I very much doubt anyone in government takes any note of the whinging and scaremongering we have seen on this forum regarding the subject. That's where the word clowns comes to mind lol. | |||
