Private schools, times a changing?
Discussion
Thinking out of the box, wouldn't a better idea for allowing private schools to not have to charge VAT (and also business rates, which as been mooted at some point) to ask them to guarantee x% of pupils from certain backgrounds and to offer x% of scholarships? As well as offering to partner with local schools/communities and share resources where possible, e.g. 3G/4G sports pitches, swimming pools and so on.
By adding VAT on to school fees, private schools will become more exclusive, not more inclusive, and I can't see there'll be any benefit to the state sector from the fees raised. A certain percentage of private school pupils will now need to accommodated in the state sector, whilst the overall tax take will be lower than 20% of total fees because schools will be able to claim a certain amount back on some supplies. There is a chance that some schools may lose enough pupils to not be viable, leading to them closing. I don't know how local authorities handle this, but I can't imagine accommodating hundreds of additional pupils will be easier.
I actually don't disagree with the tax in principle, but I think it needs to be better thought through and in my mind would be best if it were gradiated and brought in in stages rather than overnight so as to minimise disruption to existing children's education.
By adding VAT on to school fees, private schools will become more exclusive, not more inclusive, and I can't see there'll be any benefit to the state sector from the fees raised. A certain percentage of private school pupils will now need to accommodated in the state sector, whilst the overall tax take will be lower than 20% of total fees because schools will be able to claim a certain amount back on some supplies. There is a chance that some schools may lose enough pupils to not be viable, leading to them closing. I don't know how local authorities handle this, but I can't imagine accommodating hundreds of additional pupils will be easier.
I actually don't disagree with the tax in principle, but I think it needs to be better thought through and in my mind would be best if it were gradiated and brought in in stages rather than overnight so as to minimise disruption to existing children's education.
Cheib said:
You can get tax advice and you can get an “opinion” from HMRC but that won’t stop HMRC changing their mind in retrospect if they want to. Been there done that.
You’ll get a letter three years down the line saying “We’re issuing you with an APN because we believe you owe us the VAT on those advance school fees you paid three years ago”
You then have the choice to argue the toss or pay up.
They literally make the rules up as they go along. They’ll probably say the advance payment was made with the express intention of avoiding tax so existing tax legislation doesn’t apply.
If it was a handful of people paying in advance it probably wouldn’t get flagged but once you have a few thousand people pre paying it is then meaningful for HMRC to set up a team to reclaim it.
They have seven years to challenge your tax return, issuing an APN then puts that tax return in limbo and effectively buys them time.
They’re utter
s
I'm happy to make them work for it. You’ll get a letter three years down the line saying “We’re issuing you with an APN because we believe you owe us the VAT on those advance school fees you paid three years ago”
You then have the choice to argue the toss or pay up.
They literally make the rules up as they go along. They’ll probably say the advance payment was made with the express intention of avoiding tax so existing tax legislation doesn’t apply.
If it was a handful of people paying in advance it probably wouldn’t get flagged but once you have a few thousand people pre paying it is then meaningful for HMRC to set up a team to reclaim it.
They have seven years to challenge your tax return, issuing an APN then puts that tax return in limbo and effectively buys them time.
They’re utter
s In my opinion I pay more than enough tax already to subsidise the offspring of those that don't without the additional VAT, but won't lose any sleep if they do choose to claw it back. I also won't pretend like some of the champagne hypocrites I see on here that I really care about how others choose to educate their children. I don't. I am happy to own the fact that I pay for my kids education both for the best facilities but also to shelter them in the classroom as they grow up.
u-boat said:
Because they might be having to change school at a difficult or important time in their education eg gcse or a level year, they’ve also not been able to move to an area where the schools might be better or even get into a better school when they are younger.
Having to suddenly change school isn’t really like not being able to afford lobster at all.
All children are not “at the same standard of education”, there’s all sorts of advantages parents who are engaged in their kids education (financially or not) can massively help with, paying for private school is just one of them.
So they are absolutely in the same boat as other children whose parents can’t afford private education.Having to suddenly change school isn’t really like not being able to afford lobster at all.
All children are not “at the same standard of education”, there’s all sorts of advantages parents who are engaged in their kids education (financially or not) can massively help with, paying for private school is just one of them.
Mr Penguin said:
I went to a state school in year 7 and 8 and while lots of things happened, the worst was someone trying to set fire to another boy's head - he came back the next day with no punishment besides a ticking off. This was supposedly a very good comp in a middle class area.
Private school from year 9 onwards was completely different - break the rules sufficiently and you are gone. On several occasions it was made abundantly clear to us through words and actions that certain behaviour would not be tolerated and even that this applied to actions at other schools before joining ours. Needless to say that this approach meant that the teachers spent more time actually teaching.
Thanks for another argument as to how private education is subsidised by the state sector!Private school from year 9 onwards was completely different - break the rules sufficiently and you are gone. On several occasions it was made abundantly clear to us through words and actions that certain behaviour would not be tolerated and even that this applied to actions at other schools before joining ours. Needless to say that this approach meant that the teachers spent more time actually teaching.
Education is a right all children deserve irrespective of their own behavioral issues, private schools can take the attitude of if you don't obey our rules we will exclude you precisely because the legal obligation to educate children isn't bourne by them and those children can go to state school.
IFS report on likely financial impacts of the policy, TLDR will raise ~£1.5 billion, unlikely to have much of an effect on numbers, in the short term few parents likely to pull children out of school or deny equivalent education to younger siblings, longer term 20% increase in costs commensurate with the real terms increases of the last 10 year anyway.
Money that would have been spent of private education is likely to go to activities that also pay VAT at similar rates.
https://ifs.org.uk/news/removing-tax-exemptions-pr...
Talksteer said:
Thanks for another argument as to how private education is subsidised by the state sector!
Education is a right all children deserve irrespective of their own behavioral issues, private schools can take the attitude of if you don't obey our rules we will exclude you precisely because the legal obligation to educate children isn't bourne by them and those children can go to state school.
IFS report on likely financial impacts of the policy, TLDR will raise ~£1.5 billion, unlikely to have much of an effect on numbers, in the short term few parents likely to pull children out of school or deny equivalent education to younger siblings, longer term 20% increase in costs commensurate with the real terms increases of the last 10 year anyway.
Money that would have been spent of private education is likely to go to activities that also pay VAT at similar rates.
https://ifs.org.uk/news/removing-tax-exemptions-pr...
It's all guesswork:Education is a right all children deserve irrespective of their own behavioral issues, private schools can take the attitude of if you don't obey our rules we will exclude you precisely because the legal obligation to educate children isn't bourne by them and those children can go to state school.
IFS report on likely financial impacts of the policy, TLDR will raise ~£1.5 billion, unlikely to have much of an effect on numbers, in the short term few parents likely to pull children out of school or deny equivalent education to younger siblings, longer term 20% increase in costs commensurate with the real terms increases of the last 10 year anyway.
Money that would have been spent of private education is likely to go to activities that also pay VAT at similar rates.
https://ifs.org.uk/news/removing-tax-exemptions-pr...
"perhaps a reduction of 3–7% in private school attendance"
"If some pupils do move to the state sector"
"The (limited) evidence on the determinants of the demand for private schooling suggests that the effects of fee rises are quite weak."
Contradicts a report only a couple of weeks ago that estimated the numbers being much higher.
Nobody except the parents paying the fees actually knows if they are going to be able to keep paying the fees. Has that research been done, nope. And yet the IFS has a crystal ball and guesses that over 93% of parents have enough excess disposable income and can afford the increase. What a load of b
ks.Ken_Code said:
So they are absolutely in the same boat as other children whose parents can’t afford private education.
Well only if those parents and children are suddenly having to change school against their wishes. Are you up for stopping other advantaged parents give their children inherited genetics, spending time with them, helping with their studies and encouraging them, paying for a tutor etc? Or is it just paying for private school you’re against?
Plenty of parents at state school could also “afford private education” but don’t want to pay for it. Private schools are full of parents making massive sacrifices to help their kids.
Are you, or would you provide opportunities for your children that others don’t do or can’t afford or don’t want to spend time doing or don’t want to pay for? Is that fair on those kids?
Edited by u-boat on Friday 5th April 12:04
M1AGM said:
It's all guesswork:
"perhaps a reduction of 3–7% in private school attendance"
"If some pupils do move to the state sector"
"The (limited) evidence on the determinants of the demand for private schooling suggests that the effects of fee rises are quite weak."
Contradicts a report only a couple of weeks ago that estimated the numbers being much higher.
Nobody except the parents paying the fees actually knows if they are going to be able to keep paying the fees. Has that research been done, nope. And yet the IFS has a crystal ball and guesses that over 93% of parents have enough excess disposable income and can afford the increase. What a load of bks.
Considering the report was released in July 2023, we can assume it's based on research performed somewhat before that."perhaps a reduction of 3–7% in private school attendance"
"If some pupils do move to the state sector"
"The (limited) evidence on the determinants of the demand for private schooling suggests that the effects of fee rises are quite weak."
Contradicts a report only a couple of weeks ago that estimated the numbers being much higher.
Nobody except the parents paying the fees actually knows if they are going to be able to keep paying the fees. Has that research been done, nope. And yet the IFS has a crystal ball and guesses that over 93% of parents have enough excess disposable income and can afford the increase. What a load of b
ks.So the full effect of increased interest rates on mortgage costs has probably not been felt. There might be some options for some parents to weigh up:-
- Downsize to a cheaper property or to a cheaper area for a smaller mortgage, but keep children in private school
- Move to an equivalent property (or even go bigger), but where there is an state Ofsted "Excellent" school, substituting school costs for mortgage costs
- Keep things exactly the same
dazmanultra said:
M1AGM said:
It's all guesswork:
"perhaps a reduction of 3–7% in private school attendance"
"If some pupils do move to the state sector"
"The (limited) evidence on the determinants of the demand for private schooling suggests that the effects of fee rises are quite weak."
Contradicts a report only a couple of weeks ago that estimated the numbers being much higher.
Nobody except the parents paying the fees actually knows if they are going to be able to keep paying the fees. Has that research been done, nope. And yet the IFS has a crystal ball and guesses that over 93% of parents have enough excess disposable income and can afford the increase. What a load of bks.
Considering the report was released in July 2023, we can assume it's based on research performed somewhat before that."perhaps a reduction of 3–7% in private school attendance"
"If some pupils do move to the state sector"
"The (limited) evidence on the determinants of the demand for private schooling suggests that the effects of fee rises are quite weak."
Contradicts a report only a couple of weeks ago that estimated the numbers being much higher.
Nobody except the parents paying the fees actually knows if they are going to be able to keep paying the fees. Has that research been done, nope. And yet the IFS has a crystal ball and guesses that over 93% of parents have enough excess disposable income and can afford the increase. What a load of b
ks.So the full effect of increased interest rates on mortgage costs has probably not been felt. There might be some options for some parents to weigh up:-
- Downsize to a cheaper property or to a cheaper area for a smaller mortgage, but keep children in private school
- Move to an equivalent property (or even go bigger), but where there is an state Ofsted "Excellent" school, substituting school costs for mortgage costs
- Keep things exactly the same
Mr Penguin said:
The effects of any policy like this will always be based on some guesswork, that goes for the benefits of a policy just as much as the downsides. Especially so since the effects won't be uniform across areas or even within schools.
Very true. This policy won't affect the pupil numbers at Eton or Harrow at all. dazmanultra said:
Very true. This policy won't affect the pupil numbers at Eton or Harrow at all.
Quite.Those who think private school is unfair, won’t be made happy by these changes, unless they just want to see some less well off parents stop sending their kids there and their kids having disruption to their education by changing school.
It’s hardly winning in any way for those at state school or ideologically opposed to private school is it? Just disadvantaging some of the less well off parents at private school who were making sacrifices for their children and their children themselves, for little or no real reward.
How patronising to imagine that the current state school parents are unable to improve the failing state schools but these few new private school parents will actually be able to make changes when the state school parents have apparently failed at it for decades.
This isn’t about raising money for state schools or improving equality it’s just negative old party politics trying to win some votes and aimed at stoking divisions and playing on people’s feelings of inadequacy or biases.
Labour doesn’t need to do this, why not be a party of ambition and positive change rather than focusing on negative old 80s policies aimed at just taking away things from people for no real benefit to society at large.
u-boat said:
Quite.
Those who think private school is unfair, won’t be made happy by these changes, unless they just want to see some less well off parents stop sending their kids there and their kids having disruption to their education by changing school.
It’s hardly winning in any way for those at state school or ideologically opposed to private school is it? Just disadvantaging some of the less well off parents at private school who were making sacrifices for their children and their children themselves, for little or no real reward.
How patronising to imagine that the current state school parents are unable to improve the failing state schools but these few new private school parents will actually be able to make changes when the state school parents have apparently failed at it for decades.
This isn’t about raising money for state schools or improving equality it’s just negative old party politics trying to win some votes and aimed at stoking divisions and playing on people’s feelings of inadequacy or biases.
Labour doesn’t need to do this, why not be a party of ambition and positive change rather than focusing on negative old 80s policies aimed at just taking away things from people for no real benefit to society at large.
absolutely, where can other businesses also sign up for this ambitious and positive tax treatment?Those who think private school is unfair, won’t be made happy by these changes, unless they just want to see some less well off parents stop sending their kids there and their kids having disruption to their education by changing school.
It’s hardly winning in any way for those at state school or ideologically opposed to private school is it? Just disadvantaging some of the less well off parents at private school who were making sacrifices for their children and their children themselves, for little or no real reward.
How patronising to imagine that the current state school parents are unable to improve the failing state schools but these few new private school parents will actually be able to make changes when the state school parents have apparently failed at it for decades.
This isn’t about raising money for state schools or improving equality it’s just negative old party politics trying to win some votes and aimed at stoking divisions and playing on people’s feelings of inadequacy or biases.
Labour doesn’t need to do this, why not be a party of ambition and positive change rather than focusing on negative old 80s policies aimed at just taking away things from people for no real benefit to society at large.
Mr Penguin said:
dazmanultra said:
Very true. This policy won't affect the pupil numbers at Eton or Harrow at all.
Even at the top level, there will be people striving and budgeting to pay the fees. I think someone has already given an example of someone like that on this thread.u-boat said:
pork911 said:
absolutely, where can other businesses also sign up for this ambitious and positive tax treatment?
Presumably some sort of accountant or financial advisor can help with the many positive tax advantages available to you when running a business? richhead said:
Mr Penguin said:
dazmanultra said:
Very true. This policy won't affect the pupil numbers at Eton or Harrow at all.
Even at the top level, there will be people striving and budgeting to pay the fees. I think someone has already given an example of someone like that on this thread.Will parents wanting to help their children perhaps (shock horror) by spending some money also be stopped from paying for tutors or spending money moving to a catchment area where the schools are better or maybe buying books with that unfair money or unfairly passing on other advantages to their children.
M1AGM said:
u-boat said:
pork911 said:
absolutely, where can other businesses also sign up for this ambitious and positive tax treatment?
Presumably some sort of accountant or financial advisor can help with the many positive tax advantages available to you when running a business? https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/sra-considers-bi...
u-boat said:
richhead said:
Mr Penguin said:
dazmanultra said:
Very true. This policy won't affect the pupil numbers at Eton or Harrow at all.
Even at the top level, there will be people striving and budgeting to pay the fees. I think someone has already given an example of someone like that on this thread.Will parents wanting to help their children perhaps (shock horror) by spending some money also be stopped from paying for tutors or spending money moving to a catchment area where the schools are better or maybe buying books with that unfair money or unfairly passing on other advantages to their children.
Answer to 'unfairness' = State-managed eugenics programme + State-run child rearing farms (ha ha ha tee hee hee ho ho ho). Not a chance.
Unfortunately the State is in a state of ongoing uselessness anyway, with politicians and administrators who know better than others what others need, combining to make that State of uselessness. That's without the utter unacceptability of State-managed eugenics and State-run child rearing farms.
In any case, as soon as the first two robots left a state-run child rearing farm, their futures would start to become unequal. The real world is a world of unequals, people should have realised that by now, but political ideology has to be blind to reality or it would die (again). Forcing everyone into identikit grey tunics hasn't worked yet, nor will it.
Actually stop there, Labour will be in gov't soon and things can only get better including hammering independent schools which will make the country a great place once again, Labour will MBGA.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff