Rishi Sunak - Prime Minister

[Sway]

Dingu said:

If Tory MPs genuinely are trying to block the election they deserve to never take power again. Truly a totally thick corrupt bunch of aholes.

There should be a public enquiry into the corruption of this government with prosecutions following.

It's hardly corrupt to try to influence the party leader to do something different. It's not like they're trying to block elections, merely the timing.

Lots of people amazed he's pulled the pin so early.

[Dingu]

Sway said:

Dingu said:

If Tory MPs genuinely are trying to block the election they deserve to never take power again. Truly a totally thick corrupt bunch of aholes.

There should be a public enquiry into the corruption of this government with prosecutions following.

It's hardly corrupt to try to influence the party leader to do something different. It's not like they're trying to block elections, merely the timing.

Lots of people amazed he's pulled the pin so early.

Should have been clearer, they are corrupt (period, full stop in general), and blocking the election that the majority want is ridiculous. Self serving wkers.

Without doubt this is the worst government in British history.

[otolith]

I dislike the private schools policy because it’s essentially spiteful - it’s not about the money, it’s not about making anyone’s life better, it’s just red meat for the troops. File with Tory policies to kick people their core doesn’t like. But it’s not going to lose Labour many votes.

People who can afford to spend that much money improving their kids’ life chances will just find another way to do it. It won’t level down as intended.

[rscott]

Think the TUC may have had the best damp Sunak tweet -

[isaldiri]

otolith said:

I dislike the private schools policy because it’s essentially spiteful - it’s not about the money, it’s not about making anyone’s life better, it’s just red meat for the troops. File with Tory policies to kick people their core doesn’t like. But it’s not going to lose Labour many votes.

People who can afford to spend that much money improving their kids’ life chances will just find another way to do it. It won’t level down as intended.

Ah but red meat is only bad when it's being thrown out by the tories to 'the gammons'.....

[OzzyR1]

otolith said:

I dislike the private schools policy because it’s essentially spiteful - it’s not about the money, it’s not about making anyone’s life better, it’s just red meat for the troops. File with Tory policies to kick people their core doesn’t like. But it’s not going to lose Labour many votes.

People who can afford to spend that much money improving their kids’ life chances will just find another way to do it. It won’t level down as intended.

It's a "f**k you" gesture to those perceived as rich because they send their kid to private school.

Issue is a large percentage of those parents actually are rich; 95% of kids who attend old public schools (Eton, Harrow, Stowe etc) are absolutely minted. The majority of those with kids at private schools are financially OK too.

That's the rub with this policy; a 20% increase will not even register to these folks, it's insignificant in the scheme of things.
What will be celebrated as sticking two fingers up to "the rich" won't even be noticed by most of them.

Biggest effect will be on the minority of parents who earn slightly above average & choose to send their kid to a private school rather than spend on other things & are already stretched

Edited by OzzyR1 on Thursday 23 May 03:39

[OzzyR1]

ChocolateFrog said:

Sway said:

Agreed.

Tax is as much about influencing the actions of the populace as it is generating revenue.

Do we really want to discourage people sending kids to private schools and reducing the pressures on the state system?

The money generated would more than offset the handful of kids that get to enjoy overfilled and understaffed schools with the rest of us.

It's such a weak argument that you and everyone else with skin in the game makes its laughable.

Conservatively I've make it an extra 2 billion quid, assuming average fees of £20k a year.

I think the system will cope with a few extra Wills rocking up.

"With schooling, every domestic child who opts out of the private system to avoid about £3,000 of VAT will then need about £8,000 in taxpayer money annually to fund their state education. The potential result? A substantial threat to the Treasury’s ability to fund improved state education outcomes".

"There are differing opinions as to how much the tax rise is likely to affect demand for private school places... I have heard that a leading industry consultant advises schools to budget for a near 25% decline by 2030. Notably, at a 25% decline, the net impact becomes negative as the cost of educating private school leavers in the state system would exceed all VAT gains".

From an article in the (notoriously right-wing) Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/...


I've got no skin in the game, don't have kids - just an alternative viewpoint I read.

I hope that if VAT on fees is introduced, it is for new pupils only not blanket across the board at Day 1.

Most parents with children at public/private schools could likely manage the increase, but for those who can't it would be unfair on the kids to have to change environment especially if in the GCSE / A-level period.

If it's brought in, it needs to be managed correctly.

Edited by OzzyR1 on Thursday 23 May 03:48

[blueg33]

Since when was Sunak talking about adding VAT to school fees?

Shouldn’t that discussion be on the Starmer thread?

Back to Sunak. I don’t understand why he has called an election now, but I’m glad he has. The Tories need to go away and sort themselves out.

Sadly though, I don’t think they have the vision or the talent to get rid of this barrel of rotten apples, because it will leave them with no apples at all. The rot started by Boris has made sure that they have no depth of talent.

I used to vote Tory I stopped when it Boris because leader, when Sunak became leader I was fleetingly hopeful, but that tiny bubble of hope was burst very quickly.

[768]

ChocolateFrog said:

The money generated would more than offset the handful of kids that get to enjoy overfilled and understaffed schools with the rest of us.

It's such a weak argument that you and everyone else with skin in the game makes its laughable.

Conservatively I've make it an extra 2 billion quid, assuming average fees of £20k a year.

I think the system will cope with a few extra Wills rocking up.

My skin in the game is having three kids in state school.

I don't see how it can raise any money. People would take a van to France to save a few quid on wine, l bet your fag packet maths didn't have anyone taking the cheaper option by thousands per child with additional bragging rights on the continent.

[JagLover]

rscott said:

Think the TUC may have had the best damp Sunak tweet -

Yes, very funny.

[bitchstewie]

Caddyshack said:

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

Yeah I can understand that point of view.

Like I said I just don't feel especially strongly about it either way - seems like red meat that nobody would be bothered about if it got quietly pulled.

But I also don't think it will be a big deal on the doorstep or at the ballot box despite a few people (not you) banging on about it as if it's swayed their vote whilst they'd never vote Labour anyway.

[Rufus Stone]

OzzyR1 said:

I've got no skin in the game, don't have kids - just an alternative viewpoint I read.

I hope that if VAT on fees is introduced, it is for new pupils only not blanket across the board at Day 1.

Most parents with children at public/private schools could likely manage the increase, but for those who can't it would be unfair on the kids to have to change environment especially if in the GCSE / A-level period.

If it's brought in, it needs to be managed correctly.

Well these schools are supposed to be charities, perhaps they can make a charitable action and pay the VAT element for the parents.

[PlywoodPascal]

otolith said:

I dislike the private schools policy because it’s essentially spiteful - it’s not about the money, it’s not about making anyone’s life better, it’s just red meat for the troops. File with Tory policies to kick people their core doesn’t like. But it’s not going to lose Labour many votes.

People who can afford to spend that much money improving their kids’ life chances will just find another way to do it. It won’t level down as intended.

I don’t think it’s necessarily entirely spiteful. There is. Fairly good argument that removing or reducing private education as an option would place real, effective pressure on governments to improve state education and therefore lead to better educational outcomes more broadly,
There’s a fairly good argument that that wouldn’t happen, though, also I suppose

[Prolex-UK]

PlywoodPascal said:

otolith said:

I dislike the private schools policy because it’s essentially spiteful - it’s not about the money, it’s not about making anyone’s life better, it’s just red meat for the troops. File with Tory policies to kick people their core doesn’t like. But it’s not going to lose Labour many votes.

People who can afford to spend that much money improving their kids’ life chances will just find another way to do it. It won’t level down as intended.

I don’t think it’s necessarily entirely spiteful. There is. Fairly good argument that removing or reducing private education as an option would place real, effective pressure on governments to improve state education and therefore lead to better educational outcomes more broadly,
There’s a fairly good argument that that wouldn’t happen, though, also I suppose

State schools pay VAT why not private schools

[turbobloke]

Prolex-UK said:

PlywoodPascal said:

otolith said:

I dislike the private schools policy because it’s essentially spiteful - it’s not about the money, it’s not about making anyone’s life better, it’s just red meat for the troops. File with Tory policies to kick people their core doesn’t like. But it’s not going to lose Labour many votes.

People who can afford to spend that much money improving their kids’ life chances will just find another way to do it. It won’t level down as intended.

I don’t think it’s necessarily entirely spiteful. There is. Fairly good argument that removing or reducing private education as an option would place real, effective pressure on governments to improve state education and therefore lead to better educational outcomes more broadly,
There’s a fairly good argument that that wouldn’t happen, though, also I suppose

State schools pay VAT why not private schools

Because around 70% of independent schools have charitable status and that's how it works for charities.

[Speed 3]

Prolex-UK said:

State schools pay VAT why not private schools

It's amazing how many posters on here don't get the proposed policy and have to be repeatedly corrected.

Its about "customers" (ie parents) paying VAT on fees, not whether the organisation can claim back Input Tax (neither can as they don't currently levy Output Tax, State Schools don't generate sales, Private Schools do).

[Speed 3]

Just before the announcement yesterday I heard Rishi was calling the election now "because he was fed up". Sorry, can't remember the the source but it may have been someone in the the MAKE UK / John Curtice webinar I was attending. The MAKE CEO is well connected and was receiving texts as the presentation was hoping on, it may have been him.

If true that's a pretty sad indictment of the Tories behaviours & situation and Rishi's resilience.

[JagLover]

Speed 3 said:

Prolex-UK said:

State schools pay VAT why not private schools

It's amazing how many posters on here don't get the proposed policy and have to be repeatedly corrected.

Its about "customers" (ie parents) paying VAT on fees, not whether the organisation can claim back Input Tax (neither can as they don't currently levy Output Tax, State Schools don't generate sales, Private Schools do).

State schools reclaim most of the input VAT they incur by a special rule, under the public bodies VAT refund regime found in section 33 of the VAT Act 1994, with a further exemption for academies.

Private schools are not able to do the same currently as not a public body and providing an exempt supply.

[p1stonhead]

JagLover said:

Speed 3 said:

Prolex-UK said:

State schools pay VAT why not private schools

It's amazing how many posters on here don't get the proposed policy and have to be repeatedly corrected.

Its about "customers" (ie parents) paying VAT on fees, not whether the organisation can claim back Input Tax (neither can as they don't currently levy Output Tax, State Schools don't generate sales, Private Schools do).

State schools reclaim most of the input VAT they incur by a special rule, under the public bodies VAT refund regime found in section 33 of the VAT Act 1994, with a further exemption for academies.

Private schools are not able to do the same currently as not a public body and providing an exempt supply.

What other private businesses don’t have to charge VAT?

That’s all they are. They charge for a service.

[isaldiri]

OzzyR1 said:

Biggest effect will be on the minority of parents who earn slightly above average & choose to send their kid to a private school rather than spend on other things & are already stretched

But that's the whole point of the policy - to bring that tier of people back down with everyone else. The ultra rich as you say won't be all that affected but this next group is probably the far more satisfying target after all for those that the policy is targeted to appease......