Private schools, times a changing?

[cheesejunkie]

ettore said:

Ok pal, you’ve made your point plenty of times now. No need to get in the way of us poor sods who are paying - you’re getting in the way of our grumbling.

Lol, I'm also paying.

But I'll back off unless someone says something that annoys me. Not a difficult thing to do.

[Raddors]

Zigster said:

That’s my understanding too: there is going to be something about VAT applying when the service is provided rather than when the fees were paid. I don’t know how that will work in practice given that I know parents who paid a big lump sum several years ago, well before the current discussion about VAT on school fees was mooted.

The whole fees in advance issue is still up in the air. It will come down to whether the supply of educational services is seen as a continuous supply regime or default regime. Continuous supply would be like supply of a telephone line with continuous stream of supply rather than outcome based as default regime would be.

If HMRC class education as continuous, the tax point would be when payment (fees in advance) were paid and VAT exempt if paid before the change in vat.

If default regime it will come down to whether HMRC accept that at the accelerated tax point (point of invoice or payment in advance), parents and school meet the precise identification test i.e. do the parents know precisely what they are pre-paying for and schools know exactly what they are supplying? How this will be tested is unknown. As there is no draft legislation or guidance there will be no way to tell until it is tested by HMRC.

I'm not a tax expert but in an independent school.

[NDA]

Ken_Code said:

The child who can’t afford to go to Harrow any more will be accommodated in a state school, where millions of other children go.

These, and other children forced to switch by schools closing and/or higher fees, could cost the taxpayer around £!.3bn annually to be state educated. It's like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Many children in my area cannot go to the local state schools - they're full, and the government doesn't appear to be building any more.

This sets aside the unnecessary and massive disruption of children's education.

But hey! A vote winner for Labour. That's all that matters.

[Hedgedhog]

Raddors said:

The whole fees in advance issue is still up in the air. It will come down to whether the supply of educational services is seen as a continuous supply regime or default regime. Continuous supply would be like supply of a telephone line with continuous stream of supply rather than outcome based as default regime would be.

This is in line with the advice I've been given. I certainly don't see any downside in testing it.

[TUS373]

This very afternoon I have received the fee structure for my son's school for 2024/2025. Fees have inevitably gone up again, before any talk of adding VAT on top. My son will be going into his last school year, but we may have to pay VAT for that one year.

When you put your kids into private education, you are opting out of state education - but you are still paying for both. I think if parents at private schools have to pay additional tax on a service they receive, there should be a commensurate tax break given back for the subsidy parents are providing to state education, but not receiving the service.

It is not like NHS versus private care, where private care is normally a top up in addition to receiving state health care.

There is a strong case to think that there will be a general election this year and that Labour will win. I am not wedded to any political party but if Labour pursue the addition of VAT I will not be voting for them. Its a tax on the 'rich' that are not necessarily rich.

How will it work if a pupil gets a scholarship for example 50%? Who pays the VAT on the other half of the fee bill that the parent does not pay? Does that become exempt? If so, happys days. Let everyone have a 100% scholarship and instead pay a £10K per year contribution for school dinners!

[Raddors]

Hedgedhog said:

This is in line with the advice I've been given. I certainly don't see any downside in testing it.

Absolutely agree. Many schools are taking individual tax advice but no advisor is going to nail their colour to the mast and give a guarantee one way or the other at this stage. So parents should not be banking on it as a surefire way to avoid VAT for the duration of their child's education.

[dimots]

TUS373 said:

This very afternoon I have received the fee structure for my son's school for 2024/2025. Fees have inevitably gone up again, before any talk of adding VAT on top. My son will be going into his last school year, but we may have to pay VAT for that one year.

When you put your kids into private education, you are opting out of state education - but you are still paying for both. I think if parents at private schools have to pay additional tax on a service they receive, there should be a commensurate tax break given back for the subsidy parents are providing to state education, but not receiving the service.

It is not like NHS versus private care, where private care is normally a top up in addition to receiving state health care.

There is a strong case to think that there will be a general election this year and that Labour will win. I am not wedded to any political party but if Labour pursue the addition of VAT I will not be voting for them. Its a tax on the 'rich' that are not necessarily rich.

How will it work if a pupil gets a scholarship for example 50%? Who pays the VAT on the other half of the fee bill that the parent does not pay? Does that become exempt? If so, happys days. Let everyone have a 100% scholarship and instead pay a £10K per year contribution for school dinners!

Good idea. We should also return taxes to those who don't drive, don't use trains, don't go to prison, don't get sick, don't use emergency services, etc...

It's all just a tax on the rich really isn't it? I would much rather be even richer and let the sick, criminals and other such needy resource draining types pay all the taxes!

[otolith]

dimots said:

Good idea. We should also return taxes to those who don't drive, don't use trains, don't go to prison, don't get sick, don't use emergency services, etc...

It's all just a tax on the rich really isn't it? I would much rather be even richer and let the sick, criminals and other such needy resource draining types pay all the taxes!

Maybe charge VAT on the fees but provide a voucher for what the state would otherwise have spent?

[TUS373]

dimots said:

TUS373 said:

This very afternoon I have received the fee structure for my son's school for 2024/2025. Fees have inevitably gone up again, before any talk of adding VAT on top. My son will be going into his last school year, but we may have to pay VAT for that one year.

When you put your kids into private education, you are opting out of state education - but you are still paying for both. I think if parents at private schools have to pay additional tax on a service they receive, there should be a commensurate tax break given back for the subsidy parents are providing to state education, but not receiving the service.

It is not like NHS versus private care, where private care is normally a top up in addition to receiving state health care.

There is a strong case to think that there will be a general election this year and that Labour will win. I am not wedded to any political party but if Labour pursue the addition of VAT I will not be voting for them. Its a tax on the 'rich' that are not necessarily rich.

How will it work if a pupil gets a scholarship for example 50%? Who pays the VAT on the other half of the fee bill that the parent does not pay? Does that become exempt? If so, happys days. Let everyone have a 100% scholarship and instead pay a £10K per year contribution for school dinners!

Good idea. We should also return taxes to those who don't drive, don't use trains, don't go to prison, don't get sick, don't use emergency services, etc...

It's all just a tax on the rich really isn't it? I would much rather be even richer and let the sick, criminals and other such needy resource draining types pay all the taxes!

Sorry, but that comparison just does not compute. A parent sending a child to private school is paying twice already - at least. You earn money, you pay tax, that subsidises schools. Fine. Parents have elected to opt out of state education, but subsidise it still. What is legitimate about paying additional tax on top of another service - and why now? Its a tax for tax's sake. And what will that tax be used for - will it go back into....education? Hang on, we are already paying that.

As I understand it, no VAT on children's clothes and shoes - but hey, yes, let's stick it on their education and target 'the rich'.

And a quick mention for Angela Rayner. From Wiki: "Angela Bowen was born on 28 March 1980 in Stockport, Greater Manchester. She attended Avondale School in Stockport, leaving the school aged 16 after becoming pregnant, and did not obtain any qualifications."

Well, what a fine example to set. Did she make the most of the education that she was provided with by the state - but funded partially bu those also paying for private education?

I don't doubt that reform is very much needed, but 'just add VAT' is not a quick fix, and there will be consequences that mean that money is not pure profit.

There is a school of thought that if you don't pay for something, you don't respect it. Pay for it, and you do. I think that applies to a lot of people paying for their kid's private education, and making sacrifices to do that.

Unfortunately, we live in an age of smart phones, but some very dumb people.

Edited by TUS373 on Thursday 4th April 17:39

[Ken_Code]

NDA said:

These, and other children forced to switch by schools closing and/or higher fees, could cost the taxpayer around £!.3bn annually to be state educated. It's like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Many children in my area cannot go to the local state schools - they're full, and the government doesn't appear to be building any more.

This sets aside the unnecessary and massive disruption of children's education.

But hey! A vote winner for Labour. That's all that matters.

I’m not sure why you posted that as a response to me, I wasn’t saying anything about whether it’s a good idea or not.

[u-boat]

cheesejunkie said:

Lol, I'm also paying.

But I'll back off unless someone says something that annoys me. Not a difficult thing to do.

Seems an odd hobby.

You don’t have kids at private school. You just sound really bitter tbh despite constantly saying how you’re happy.

Do you go on other threads about subjects people are worried about and that don’t affect you and preach to people affected like this?

[Zio Di Roma]

cheesejunkie said:

I went to a grammar school.

So you are actually okay with segregated learning then, so long as it's the sort that benefits you. Or were you less principled as a child?

[cheesejunkie]

u-boat said:

cheesejunkie said:

Lol, I'm also paying.

But I'll back off unless someone says something that annoys me. Not a difficult thing to do.

Seems an odd hobby.

You don’t have kids at private school. You just sound really bitter tbh despite constantly saying how you’re happy.

Do you go on other threads about subjects people are worried about and that don’t affect you and preach to people affected like this?

I'll post on any thread I feel like posting on.

I'm not unaffected by people wanting their children to have tax advantages.

It's not a hobby, if my opinion is an annoyance I'll not worry.

I'm not bitter, those getting very annoyed by my opinions might be.

Now do you have a defence of your position rather than an attack of mine? I can tell the difference.

[cheesejunkie]

Zio Di Roma said:

So you are actually okay with segregated learning then, so long as it's the sort that benefits you. Or were you less principled as a child?

Where did you get that notion?

I support nothing of the sort, I recognise the existence and understand the difference between supporting and dealing with it.

[Ken_Code]

Zio Di Roma said:

So you are actually okay with segregated learning then, so long as it's the sort that benefits you. Or were you less principled as a child?

Splitting into different academic streams is nothing like splitting based on ability to pay.

[Zio Di Roma]

cheesejunkie said:

Zio Di Roma said:

So you are actually okay with segregated learning then, so long as it's the sort that benefits you. Or were you less principled as a child?

Where did you get that notion?

.

You went to grammar school. Grammar schools are segregated learning. With your stated preference that no one should benefit from better education you should have attended a comprehensive, where your intellect would have raised the game of weaker children.

[Ken_Code]

Zio Di Roma said:

You went to grammar school. Grammar schools are segregated learning. With your stated preference that no one should benefit from better education

I don’t think anyone’s claimed that.

[cheesejunkie]

Zio Di Roma said:

cheesejunkie said:

Zio Di Roma said:

So you are actually okay with segregated learning then, so long as it's the sort that benefits you. Or were you less principled as a child?

Where did you get that notion?

.

You went to grammar school. Grammar schools are segregated learning. With your stated preference that no one should benefit from better education you should have attended a comprehensive, where your intellect would have raised the game of weaker children.

Yes I did. Does that mean I support segregated education? Nope. I'd advise learning about false premises but I'm not sure you'd absorb the lesson.

That was unfair. Have a nice day.

[CrgT16]

Cheese is so not interested in this, doesn’t have children in education but still is one of the most active contributors in this thread.

We agrees with the tax, that’s cool but fails to explain how it is going to improve and help the state school system.

Also chooses to ignore how many children will be aftected by that immediate 20% levy on their current education that for some parents it’s a lot in one go.

I said many times, I am not here or there regarding the tax charge. I do take issue with an immediate 20% hike. That method is punitive nothing else.

Also don’t stop at private schools, why aren’t we talking about university fees also?

I can pay but know many that can’t and will be a big detriment to their children, circle of friends, it will be dusruptice to say the least. But I guess ‘rich’ kids deserve it.

This levelling down mentality is what is bringing this country down.

[Zio Di Roma]

cheesejunkie said:

Zio Di Roma said:

cheesejunkie said:

Zio Di Roma said:

So you are actually okay with segregated learning then, so long as it's the sort that benefits you. Or were you less principled as a child?

Where did you get that notion?

.

You went to grammar school. Grammar schools are segregated learning. With your stated preference that no one should benefit from better education you should have attended a comprehensive, where your intellect would have raised the game of weaker children.

Yes I did. Does that mean I support segregated education? Nope. I'd advise learning about false premises but I'm not sure you'd absorb the lesson.

Then, as I mooted earlier, you were as a child less principled than you are as a man. Otherwise you would have insisted upon attending the local comp, rather than the Grammar.

There is no difference between you having benefited from a grammar education and a child benefiting from a private one.