Rishi Sunak - Prime Minister

[Killboy]

bhstewie said:

I'd recommend cancelling Sky and buying a cheaper mobile personally.

Maybe a few less takeaways.

I mean that's how it usually works isn't it.

Don't forget forgoing avo on toast!

[Sway]

markh1973 said:

768 said:

p1stonhead said:

No it doesn’t. Not optional rich person education.
There’s a free one down the road for everyone.

But if they go to the free one we have to pay for it, without any extra money.

Presumably you're in favour of universities paying VAT too, they can attend the university of life for free.

The suggestion that university fees are the equivalent of private school fees is nonsense. Universities aren't treated as charities - having to charge VAT on their fees is the price the private schools will have to pay in order to retain their charitable status. That doesn't mean any other education related fee becomes VATable.

How does that actually work, legally?

The criteria for being a charity are clear - and universal.

Are they now saying they'll create a new category of charity purely for schools, and that this will include VAT charging as a criteria?

[ben5575]

119 said:

Great insight into how families spend their money.

Daily mail much?

I think you need a parrot

[President Merkin]

I genuinely believe the number of fks the general public couldn't give about vat on private schools is going to come as a massive shock to a dozen or so broken records on here.

[Prolex-UK]

President Merkin said:

I genuinely believe the number of fks the general public couldn't give about vat on private schools is going to come as a massive shock to a dozen or so broken records on here.

+1

[Jinx]

bobbo89 said:

768 said:

But if they go to the free one we have to pay for it, without any extra money.

Presumably you're in favour of universities paying VAT too, they can attend the university of life for free.

Has anyone ever done the maths on this?

If every private schooled kid were to attend a public school instead would we...
A) Have the capacity
B) Have the money to fund it from what we'd have taxed through VAT from private schooling

I'm minded to think that private schools are a net gain for the government.

This should be the calculation - how many lost private school places will have to occur before this VAT addition is a net loss to the government? If we assume a state education costs 40% of a private education then we only need to lose 12% of places in private education to make the 20% increase in fees a net loss to the tax payer.

[valiant]

bobbo89 said:

Has anyone ever done the maths on this?

If every private schooled kid were to attend a public school instead would we...
A) Have the capacity
B) Have the money to fund it from what we'd have taxed through VAT from private schooling

I'm minded to think that private schools are a net gain for the government.

Why would every privately educated kid go to state school?

Labour are not proposing to close them down.

In reality a large part of the 7% of kids that are privately educated will remain in private schools as parents can still afford it and others will make the necessary changes to keep their kids in school and a few will end up in public schools (Oh, the horror!)

Despite many here making a big deal and that’s it’s somehow a major and central plank of Labour policy (despite no manifesto being released), it is a minor change that most don’t really care about especially when the NHS is on its knees, public schools are falling down, the cost of living crisis hasn’t gone away but no, it’s the plight of privately educated kids where this election will be fought on

[dundarach]

valiant said:

Why would every privately educated kid go to state school?

Labour are not proposing to close them down.

In reality a large part of the 7% of kids that are privately educated will remain in private schools as parents can still afford it and others will make the necessary changes to keep their kids in school and a few will end up in public schools (Oh, the horror!)

Despite many here making a big deal and that’s it’s somehow a major and central plank of Labour policy (despite no manifesto being released), it is a minor change that most don’t really care about especially when the NHS is on its knees, public schools are falling down, the cost of living crisis hasn’t gone away but no, it’s the plight of privately educated kids where this election will be fought on

It will for me, my dead mums paying their fees, we haven't any more to chuck in, they'll either have to go to state schools or their private one will have to cap fees, it's that simple.

[Caddyshack]

bhstewie said:

Caddyshack said:

We are in the last years of private education and I think we have taken a burden off the state schools so why can’t we expect a vat benefit as we haven’t cost the state anything for our kids education?

Can I get some of the tax back that I've paid that's gone to the NHS to treat smokers and people with other conditions due to what are essentially lifestyle choices?

Maybe I can get some tax back because I don't have kids so why should I pay to educate other peoples?

Or can I have a bit of Council Tax back that pays for the Leisure Centre and other stuff I don't use?

Exactly.

I really couldn't care if Labour do or don't go through with this policy as I think it's a bit of red meat for their traditional voter base and I wish you nothing but the best for your kids but the whole "why can’t we expect a vat benefit as we haven’t cost the state anything for our kids education?" just doesn't wash I'm afraid.

It’s not tax back though, I don’t get tax back on the education, it would be a tax charge on top….you didn’t spend vat on cigs as you didn’t smoke.

[bitchstewie]

Feels a bit semantic IMHO.

Either way I pay towards loads of services I don't use because they don't apply to me or don't impact me and I don't claim I'm hard done by because I can't get a rebate or tax break on the bits that don't apply to me.

[OutInTheShed]

The private school where my friend teaches has a fair % of foreign students.
It's a competitive market, bunging on VAt could result in losing that 'export' income.

[Caddyshack]

dundarach said:

valiant said:

Why would every privately educated kid go to state school?

Labour are not proposing to close them down.

In reality a large part of the 7% of kids that are privately educated will remain in private schools as parents can still afford it and others will make the necessary changes to keep their kids in school and a few will end up in public schools (Oh, the horror!)

Despite many here making a big deal and that’s it’s somehow a major and central plank of Labour policy (despite no manifesto being released), it is a minor change that most don’t really care about especially when the NHS is on its knees, public schools are falling down, the cost of living crisis hasn’t gone away but no, it’s the plight of privately educated kids where this election will be fought on

It will for me, my dead mums paying their fees, we haven't any more to chuck in, they'll either have to go to state schools or their private one will have to cap fees, it's that simple.

some people think that private schools are full of rich kids, I know of many kids who have parents driving them to school in old bangers as they prioritise the kids school, many parents take teaching jobs at the schools so they can get a discount to afford the school.

My daughters school will most likely close if VAT comes in on the fees and the local schools are over subscribed so it will probably drive up house prices in the catchment areas.

[rjfp1962]

I see he's on Sky News now rallying the troops....

[Sway]

Prolex-UK said:

President Merkin said:

I genuinely believe the number of fks the general public couldn't give about vat on private schools is going to come as a massive shock to a dozen or so broken records on here.

+1

As with a fair few things, what are fairly populist policies sometimes get enacted - only for those people who really couldn't give a fk (or actively supported the changes) to somewhat regret the unintended consequences that hit closer to home...

As with closing down the Assisted Places scheme, all it does is reduce social mobility - and in this case, with fairly flimsy economic basis to do so.

[p1stonhead]

Caddyshack said:

dundarach said:

valiant said:

Why would every privately educated kid go to state school?

Labour are not proposing to close them down.

In reality a large part of the 7% of kids that are privately educated will remain in private schools as parents can still afford it and others will make the necessary changes to keep their kids in school and a few will end up in public schools (Oh, the horror!)

Despite many here making a big deal and that’s it’s somehow a major and central plank of Labour policy (despite no manifesto being released), it is a minor change that most don’t really care about especially when the NHS is on its knees, public schools are falling down, the cost of living crisis hasn’t gone away but no, it’s the plight of privately educated kids where this election will be fought on

It will for me, my dead mums paying their fees, we haven't any more to chuck in, they'll either have to go to state schools or their private one will have to cap fees, it's that simple.

some people think that private schools are full of rich kids, I know of many kids who have parents driving them to school in old bangers as they prioritise the kids school, many parents take teaching jobs at the schools so they can get a discount to afford the school.

My daughters school will most likely close if VAT comes in on the fees and the local schools are over subscribed so it will probably drive up house prices in the catchment areas.

They are.

We’ve heard so much nonsense about parents ‘sacrificing’ to get their little darlings into private schools, but finding spare money for the fees are still not even the faintest possibility for most people in the country.

They average the ENTIRE take home salary of a £30,000 a year job. For one kid.

[Caddyshack]

bhstewie said:

Feels a bit semantic IMHO.

Either way I pay towards loads of services I don't use because they don't apply to me or don't impact me and I don't claim I'm hard done by because I can't get a rebate or tax break on the bits that don't apply to me.

Nothing to do with semantics, it is massively different.

I don’t think you are understanding VAT, it is a tax on top of what you spend, there is zero tax break for people spending money on school fees now. There is zero rebate and no tax break.

I do actually feel that if those that paid for private school education got an income tax break it would encourage loads more people to do it and would take pressure off state schools.

People are not getting a VAT break because they are paying for state schools anyway, it is just that education didn’t attract VAT.

We don’t get a tax break on kids clothes, they just don’t attract VAT.

[dundarach]

p1stonhead said:

They are.

We’ve heard so much nonsense about parents ‘sacrificing’ to get their little darlings into private schools, but finding spare money for the fees are still not even the faintest possibility for most people in the country.

They average the ENTIRE take home salary of a £30,000 a year job. For one kid.

Okay, I'm sure you know what you're talking about!

[bitchstewie]

Caddyshack said:

Nothing to do with semantics, it is massively different.

I don’t think you are understanding VAT, it is a tax on top of what you spend, there is zero tax break for people spending money on school fees now. There is zero rebate and no tax break.

I do actually feel that if those that paid for private school education got an income tax break it would encourage loads more people to do it and would take pressure off state schools.

People are not getting a VAT break because they are paying for state schools anyway, it is just that education didn’t attract VAT.

We don’t get a tax break on kids clothes, they just don’t attract VAT.

Whatever it's called what you said was "why can’t we expect a vat benefit as we haven’t cost the state anything for our kids education?".

I could apply the same logic to all sorts of things I'm forced to pay for that I don't consume where I don't get any benefit because I don't consume them and I can't opt out of paying for the bits I don't consume.

I can't say I feel strongly about it but I just don't see how the fact you pay tax that covers schooling whilst sending your kids to private school is any different to any of those things.

You might think that's an overly simplistic view and it might be but I doubt I'm alone.

[valiant]

dundarach said:

valiant said:

Why would every privately educated kid go to state school?

Labour are not proposing to close them down.

In reality a large part of the 7% of kids that are privately educated will remain in private schools as parents can still afford it and others will make the necessary changes to keep their kids in school and a few will end up in public schools (Oh, the horror!)

Despite many here making a big deal and that’s it’s somehow a major and central plank of Labour policy (despite no manifesto being released), it is a minor change that most don’t really care about especially when the NHS is on its knees, public schools are falling down, the cost of living crisis hasn’t gone away but no, it’s the plight of privately educated kids where this election will be fought on

It will for me, my dead mums paying their fees, we haven't any more to chuck in, they'll either have to go to state schools or their private one will have to cap fees, it's that simple.

And then your kids will be one of the 93%. They will still get an education.

[Caddyshack]

bhstewie said:

Caddyshack said:

Nothing to do with semantics, it is massively different.

I don’t think you are understanding VAT, it is a tax on top of what you spend, there is zero tax break for people spending money on school fees now. There is zero rebate and no tax break.

I do actually feel that if those that paid for private school education got an income tax break it would encourage loads more people to do it and would take pressure off state schools.

People are not getting a VAT break because they are paying for state schools anyway, it is just that education didn’t attract VAT.

We don’t get a tax break on kids clothes, they just don’t attract VAT.

Whatever it's called what you said was "why can’t we expect a vat benefit as we haven’t cost the state anything for our kids education?".

I could apply the same logic to all sorts of things I'm forced to pay for that I don't consume where I don't get any benefit because I don't consume them and I can't opt out of paying for the bits I don't consume.

I can't say I feel strongly about it but I just don't see how the fact you pay tax that covers schooling whilst sending your kids to private school is any different to any of those things.

You might think that's an overly simplistic view and it might be but I doubt I'm alone.

The bit you have quoted was just poorly worded by me, I do not receive a benefit of tax as it stands, I just don’t pay VAT, I receive no benefit currently.

Try and think of something that you do consume but then you also pay for via your taxes and you may then get the concept.

You pay for the NHS but you opt to not use their service and pay for a private operation, maybe that operation shouldn’t be attracting VAT to encourage you to take the pressure off the NHS…?

It’s NOT about paying for something that you do not consume ever. It’s about paying AND then paying vat when you consume the alternative which reduces pressure on the bit you are paying for to the benefit of others.

Edited by Caddyshack on Wednesday 22 May 20:42