Private schools, times a changing?

[Harry Flashman]

Despite cheesejunkie's admirable talent for winding the rest of you up (and everyone biting), he makes some strong points on taxation.

Everyone pays for public education, if they pay tax. I paid before I had kids, I pay now that I had kids, and I will pay after I have had kids. I may even pay after I've retired, if paying income tax on pension income. And that's just any allocation from income tax - everyone pays VAT their entire life. So any argument that private school parents are being somehow altruistic for relieving the burden on the state isn't a very strong one.

The question is whether it is fair that parents opting out of state school pay extra, via VAT on school fees. Again, the argument is an interesting one as, well, it's a service that is optional, in reality. I could, should I wish to, send my kids to our local, gang-infested, feral comprehensive school. I choose not to. But it is a choice, unlike (to some degree) heating my home, or eating.

But a couple of things stick out. Firstly, if VAT is to be blanketed over 'luxury' choices, where does it end? Some countries do this (with significant luxury car taxes, for example). Are we to tax food from Waitrose, but not from Tesco? That's a choice too - and arguably a more frivolous one than private education.

Also, my point remains about VAT on "essential services where you make a luxury choice" - private medical services are VAT free. But this one doesn't seem to be such a big vote winner...yet.

[NDA]

Were private education not to exist, the additional cost to the tax payer would be vast - I am not suggesting any altruism on the part of school fee payers, but it's worth recognising. Private schools are of immense benefit to tax payers.

And why aren't universities charging VAT?

Introducing VAT to private education has always felt politically motivated - punish those who it is believed are 'wealthy' is a vote winner amongst a certain mindset.

[M1AGM]

They wont charge vat on medical stuff because the older demographic who vote for them use those services the most.

The sad thing about this envy tax is that in the scheme of things the revenue that it will theoretically raise is so small it is obviously an envy tax. The tax take in 2022-23 was £788 billion, this envy tax is supposedly going to raise £1.3 billion. That wont cover much at all and will just get swallowed up in debt interest and SP increases.

[beagrizzly]

M1AGM said:

They wont charge vat on medical stuff because the older demographic who vote for them use those services the most.

The sad thing about this envy tax is that in the scheme of things the revenue that it will theoretically raise is so small it is obviously an envy tax. The tax take in 2022-23 was £788 billion, this envy tax is supposedly going to raise £1.3 billion. That wont cover much at all and will just get swallowed up in debt interest and SP increases.

The word 'envy' gets bandied around a lot regarding opinions on independent schools. It is possible to have an opinion on the sector without being envious. Best one I saw recently was when someone dared to complain on social media about the shocking parking around the local prep school, and got the response "you're just jealous that our kids are getting a better education", completely ignoring the possibility that a)the parking was actually really bad, and b)people also complain about the shocking parking around the local state primary schools.

The envy is there, before anyone points it out, I experienced it myself when I was a public schoolboy, but I'm certain it's not driving the majority of thought on the matter.

[cheesejunkie]

Harry Flashman said:

Despite cheesejunkie's admirable talent for winding the rest of you up (and everyone biting), he makes some strong points on taxation.

Everyone pays for public education, if they pay tax. I paid before I had kids, I pay now that I had kids, and I will pay after I have had kids. I may even pay after I've retired, if paying income tax on pension income. And that's just any allocation from income tax - everyone pays VAT their entire life. So any argument that private school parents are being somehow altruistic for relieving the burden on the state isn't a very strong one.

The question is whether it is fair that parents opting out of state school pay extra, via VAT on school fees. Again, the argument is an interesting one as, well, it's a service that is optional, in reality. I could, should I wish to, send my kids to our local, gang-infested, feral comprehensive school. I choose not to. But it is a choice, unlike (to some degree) heating my home, or eating.

But a couple of things stick out. Firstly, if VAT is to be blanketed over 'luxury' choices, where does it end? Some countries do this (with significant luxury car taxes, for example). Are we to tax food from Waitrose, but not from Tesco? That's a choice too - and arguably a more frivolous one than private education.

Also, my point remains about VAT on "essential services where you make a luxury choice" - private medical services are VAT free. But this one doesn't seem to be such a big vote winner...yet.

Precisely and although I enjoy the wind up I do have some principles beneath it all. I don't see the revenue that'll be raised by adding VAT to be the point although I understand why labour are being forced to justify the policy based on its revenue raising potential.

Governments make many choices on how and where to raise tax all the time. Some decisions get ignored. Others get a very (very in this case) vocal minority up in arms.

I'm not even a fan of VAT as I think it's a regressive type of tax but I didn't even decide to mention that yet. But if I'm going to pay it so are you and that includes when you want to claim being a social hero for leaving government schools underfunded as you can bypass the problem. (Don't take the you personally, I mean it metaphorically).

Wind up aside. Do I think slapping VAT on extra things is good - no. Do I think people sending their children to private schools are being unfairly treated compared to everyone else by suggesting they pay VAT on it - no. Do I think governments have choices on social engineering and don't always get things correct - yes. Do I think this suggestion is a bad one - no.

Private education doesn't exist in many countries. Were it not to exist here you can be damn sure public education would get more prominence. Some's unwillingness to understand that very simple point is, as mentioned, revealing. The subject gets more air time due to who it pisses off. Bedroom taxes and child limitations never got so many worked up and they're a hell of a lot more nefarious, I'd be interested in seeing a Venn diagram of who's getting irate about this one and didn't give a st about that one. I suspect I know what the result would be and I'd not think less of those not in the circle but I would question how much they really care beyond looking after themselves.

Just saw bear's comment before hitting reply. I agree, envy is tossed about as a way of shutting down objections.

[Hedgedhog]

Do the parents on here whose children currently attend state school not find it somewhat insulting that the only way it is considered possible to improve the quality of these state schools is to bring in private pupils and their tiger parents?

[M1AGM]

cheesejunkie said:

Precisely and although I enjoy the wind up I do have some principles beneath it all. I don't see the revenue that'll be raised by adding VAT to be the point although I understand why labour are being forced to justify the policy based on its revenue raising potential.

Governments make many choices on how and where to raise tax all the time. Some decisions get ignored. Others get a very (very in this case) vocal minority up in arms.

I'm not even a fan of VAT as I think it's a regressive type of tax but I didn't even decide to mention that yet. But if I'm going to pay it so are you and that includes when you want to claim being a social hero for leaving government schools underfunded as you can bypass the problem. (Don't take the you personally, I mean it metaphorically).

Wind up aside. Do I think slapping VAT on extra things is good - no. Do I think people sending their children to private schools are being unfairly treated compared to everyone else by suggesting they pay VAT on it - no. Do I think governments have choices on social engineering and don't always get things correct - yes. Do I think this suggestion is a bad one - no.

Private education doesn't exist in many countries. Were it not to exist here you can be damn sure public education would get more prominence. Some's unwillingness to understand that very simple point is, as mentioned, revealing. The subject gets more air time due to who it pisses off. Bedroom taxes and child limitations never got so many worked up and they're a hell of a lot more nefarious, I'd be interested in seeing a Venn diagram of who's getting irate about this one and didn't give a st about that one. I suspect I know what the result would be and I'd not think less of those not in the circle but I would question how much they really care beyond looking after themselves.

Just saw bear's comment before hitting reply. I agree, envy is tossed about as a way of shutting down objections.

Ignoring the bluster, you keep making the idealist point that if everyone was in the state education system it would have to get better because everyone would somehow 'make it better' due to their focus on it, and be using it and not opting out by going private.

So how has that worked out with the NHS? A 'free' universal service that is not fit for purpose in many ways, where you cannot opt out for emergency treatment. A captive audience where everyone has a stake in the outcomes, and hundreds of billions spent with nothing materially getting better. People choosing to go private when they can because of the st show. Sounds familar.

[Zaichik]

cheesejunkie said:

Precisely and although I enjoy the wind up I do have some principles beneath it all. I don't see the revenue that'll be raised by adding VAT to be the point although I understand why labour are being forced to justify the policy based on its revenue raising potential.

Governments make many choices on how and where to raise tax all the time. Some decisions get ignored. Others get a very (very in this case) vocal minority up in arms.

I'm not even a fan of VAT as I think it's a regressive type of tax but I didn't even decide to mention that yet. But if I'm going to pay it so are you and that includes when you want to claim being a social hero for leaving government schools underfunded as you can bypass the problem. (Don't take the you personally, I mean it metaphorically).

Wind up aside. Do I think slapping VAT on extra things is good - no. Do I think people sending their children to private schools are being unfairly treated compared to everyone else by suggesting they pay VAT on it - no. Do I think governments have choices on social engineering and don't always get things correct - yes. Do I think this suggestion is a bad one - no.

Private education doesn't exist in many countries. Were it not to exist here you can be damn sure public education would get more prominence. Some's unwillingness to understand that very simple point is, as mentioned, revealing. The subject gets more air time due to who it pisses off. Bedroom taxes and child limitations never got so many worked up and they're a hell of a lot more nefarious, I'd be interested in seeing a Venn diagram of who's getting irate about this one and didn't give a st about that one. I suspect I know what the result would be and I'd not think less of those not in the circle but I would question how much they really care beyond looking after themselves.

Just saw bear's comment before hitting reply. I agree, envy is tossed about as a way of shutting down objections.

Politicians are voted into government based on what their voters want. If the majority of voters want private education to be taxed, then that is what will happen whether it is good for the country or not. That is the way democracy works.
The danger I see of the approach it appears Labour to be taking is that they only want to tax one specific form of private education, so things like university fees, nursery fees, tuition, special needs teaching etc wont be subjected to this. This seems no different to saying for instance Synagogues will have to pay extra taxes but not mosques - something that some may indeed vote for too whether right or wrong. This is a slippery slope - especially as the intent is to somehow stop perceived privilege rather than raise revenue - this being the case, why not prevent parents from reading to their children or helping them at home. Why not remove children at birth and ensure all have the same upbringing?

Consumption taxes (and income too) are on the whole a better idea than some other forms of taxes such as capital gains because they are the least distortionary, so in my view make sense and if we as voters want tax on education then so be it - but it should be applied equally.

[cheesejunkie]

M1AGM said:

Ignoring the bluster, you keep making the idealist point that if everyone was in the state education system it would have to get better because everyone would somehow 'make it better' due to their focus on it, and be using it and not opting out by going private.

So how has that worked out with the NHS? A 'free' universal service that is not fit for purpose in many ways, where you cannot opt out for emergency treatment. A captive audience where everyone has a stake in the outcomes, and hundreds of billions spent with nothing materially getting better. People choosing to go private when they can because of the st show. Sounds familar.

Private health care exists.

The NHS don't have a captive market and people can choose and increasingly have to choose to bypass it due to underfunding. I've already mentioned so many times that you look after your own but when you allow for a two tier system you allow for underfunding.

People choosing to go private because they can is what we're actually agreeing on.

[otolith]

cheesejunkie said:

Private health care exists.

The NHS don't have a captive market and people can choose and increasingly have to choose to bypass it due to underfunding. I've already mentioned so many times that you look after your own but when you allow for a two tier system you allow for underfunding.

People choosing to go private because they can is what we're actually agreeing on.

On that basis, would you advocate applying VAT to private healthcare too?

[M1AGM]

cheesejunkie said:

Private health care exists.

The NHS don't have a captive market and people can choose and increasingly have to choose to bypass it due to underfunding. I've already mentioned so many times that you look after your own but when you allow for a two tier system you allow for underfunding.

People choosing to go private because they can is what we're actually agreeing on.

It absolutely does have a captive market. There are many medical situations where there is no private option. I'm surprised you dont know that.

[beagrizzly]

Hedgedhog said:

Do the parents on here whose children currently attend state school not find it somewhat insulting that the only way it is considered possible to improve the quality of these state schools is to bring in private pupils and their tiger parents?

It's an interesting question. See also - 'we went private because state education is so poor'. Hang on a minute, maybe your local state schools might be crap, but many are very good, and many more than that good enough, so please don't write off the whole sector in an attempt to demonstrate the soundness of your decisions.

[Harry Flashman]

M1AGM said:

Ignoring the bluster, you keep making the idealist point that if everyone was in the state education system it would have to get better because everyone would somehow 'make it better' due to their focus on it, and be using it and not opting out by going private.

So how has that worked out with the NHS? A 'free' universal service that is not fit for purpose in many ways, where you cannot opt out for emergency treatment. A captive audience where everyone has a stake in the outcomes, and hundreds of billions spent with nothing materially getting better. People choosing to go private when they can because of the st show. Sounds familar.

This.

[cheesejunkie]

otolith said:

On that basis, would you advocate applying VAT to private healthcare too?

Never really thought about it so I'm answering on the hoof.

As mentioned I think VAT is regressive. But yes I'd probably not have a problem also applying VAT to private health care. But I've never thought about it enough to really have a strong opinion.

My wife works in the NHS and is very against private health care on a point of principal. But she's on my work private health care policy and has availed of it to skip waiting lists for a potentially life threatening but thankfully not problem. I've used it too, but twice in 15 years, I've paid for it the whole time. I'll happily take that safety net and will happily be called a hypocrite. My principals end when it comes to defence of the family and I know some of the posters who I disagree with on here are the same. Just don't tell me it's an altruistic position when it's a selfish one.

[akirk]

Zaichik said:

Politicians are voted into government based on what their voters want. If the majority of voters want private education to be taxed, then that is what will happen whether it is good for the country or not. That is the way democracy works.

The problem is that politicians actually believe this!
political parties gain power for a number of reasons and yes their manifesto plays a role - but it would be naive to believe that means that all their pledges are supported...

2 parties
a - manifesto says keep pistonheads - compulsory euthanasia for all males over 30
b - manifesto says get rid of pistonheads - no killing off the male poppulation

which would most on here vote for - let's assume 'b' does that mean they are voting to get rid of pistonheads?

our next election is likely to be as much a protest vote against the general incompetence of Westminster / a protest vote against the tories wasting so much time in power - as much as a vote for Labour (who seem to have remarkably few actual policies!) - that doesn't mean that people are actively voting for the replacement or want all on their manifesto.

cheesejunkie said:

Private health care exists.

The NHS don't have a captive market and people can choose and increasingly have to choose to bypass it due to underfunding. I've already mentioned so many times that you look after your own but when you allow for a two tier system you allow for underfunding.

People choosing to go private because they can is what we're actually agreeing on.

Not sure your point here?
private education exists
state system doesn't have a captive market
people can choose to bypass it...

yet no tax on private medical care - but is it not the same...?

My wife is a surgeon and is passionate about delivering through the NHS - she doesn't do private practice - however that is more that she feels there is plenty to do in the NHS - she is actually very supportive of those who wish to go to private consultants - they are not the trauma cases she deals with but the longer term patients whose quality of life will be improved (she is a hand surgeon), but where the NHS can't prioritise them over more critical patients / cancers / trauma / etc. By their going private, they reduce pressure on the NHS, reduce waiting times (which are often prioritised on time waited not need to avoid the hospital being fined), reduce cost for the NHS... stripping out patients to private has no negative impact on the NHS - putting them back in does:
- additional costs
- they sit on the waiting list according to time waiting as the hospital is fined if they wait too long, so a simple issue which can be lived with might take priority over / push back more critical care
- longer wait for the individual

Edited by akirk on Thursday 21st March 10:33

[cheesejunkie]

M1AGM said:

It absolutely does have a captive market. There are many medical situations where there is no private option. I'm surprised you dont know that.

I'm surprised you think I don't. Yes I'm aware that private health care cannot cover all problems and frequently falls back onto the NHS to wipe up their mess. I'm joking on that last bit, but theatre access, 999 services etc are still the prevail of public health care unless you're one of the super rich who can afford a private ambulance and live near to one.

I don't see that as a captive market, I see it as private leaches only being willing to provide the profitable easy pickings.

[otolith]

cheesejunkie said:

otolith said:

On that basis, would you advocate applying VAT to private healthcare too?

Never really thought about it so I'm answering on the hoof.

As mentioned I think VAT is regressive. But yes I'd probably not have a problem also applying VAT to private health care. But I've never thought about it enough to really have a strong opinion.

My wife works in the NHS and is very against private health care on a point of principal. But she's on my work private health care policy and has availed of it to skip waiting lists for a potentially life threatening but thankfully not problem. I've used it too, but twice in 15 years, I've paid for it the whole time. I'll happily take that safety net and will happily be called a hypocrite. My principals end when it comes to defence of the family and I know some of the posters who I disagree with on here are the same. Just don't tell me it's an altruistic position when it's a selfish one.

I think all of the arguments you make around applying VAT to private education apply to applying it to private healthcare too. And so do those arguments people are making against it - principally that people getting their operation done privately are still paying the same taxes but are using less of the service.

I don't think the motivation for the proposal to charge VAT on private education is any of the arguments you raise - I don't think it is fundamentally about improving the lot of those who use the state sector. At some level it is about the idea of restricting the ability of parents with more resources to gift their kids a better life, and the idea of erasing the belief of those who are schooled privately that they are somehow different from the herd, and the idea of levelling the playing field of opportunity, but at a raw political level, it's about throwing something spiteful to the activists to distract them from the lack of the more radical policies they desire. It's a bit like the Rwanda policy in that respect.

[cheesejunkie]

akirk said:

Zaichik said:

Politicians are voted into government based on what their voters want. If the majority of voters want private education to be taxed, then that is what will happen whether it is good for the country or not. That is the way democracy works.

The problem is that politicians actually believe this!
political parties gain power for a number of reasons and yes their manifesto plays a role - but it would be naive to believe that means that all their pledges are supported...

2 parties
a - manifesto says keep pistonheads - compulsory euthanasia for all males over 30
b - manifesto says get rid of pistonheads - no killing off the male poppulation

which would most on here vote for - let's assume 'b' does that mean they are voting to get rid of pistonheads?

our next election is likely to be as much a protest vote against the general incompetence of Westminster / a protest vote against the tories wasting so much time in power - as much as a vote for Labour (who seem to have remarkably few actual policies!) - that doesn't mean that people are actively voting for the replacement or want all on their manifesto.

cheesejunkie said:

Private health care exists.

The NHS don't have a captive market and people can choose and increasingly have to choose to bypass it due to underfunding. I've already mentioned so many times that you look after your own but when you allow for a two tier system you allow for underfunding.

People choosing to go private because they can is what we're actually agreeing on.

Not sure your point here?
private education exists
state system doesn't have a captive market
people can choose to bypass it...

yet no tax on private medical care - but is it not the same...?

My wife is a surgeon and is passionate about delivering through the NHS - she doesn't do private practice - however that is more that she feels there is plenty to do in the NHS - she is actually very supportive of those who wish to go to private consultants - they are not the trauma cases she deals with but the longer term patients whose quality of life will be improved (she is a hand surgeon), but where the NHS can't prioritise them over more critical patients / cancers / trauma / etc. By their going private, they reduce pressure on the NHS, reduce waiting times (which are often prioritised on time waited not need to avoid the hospital being fined), reduce cost for the NHS... stripping out patients to private has no negative impact on the NHS - putting them back in does:
- additional costs
- they sit on the waiting list according to time waiting as the hospital is fined if they wait too long, so a simple issue which can be lived with might take priority over / push back more critical care
- longer wait for the individual

Edited by akirk on Thursday 21st March 10:33

To be honest I've spent so many words making my point that I assume it's already known and don't feel the need to be overly explicit on every detail. If you just read my latest comment I can understand its lack of context but I'm doing some on here the credit of having read and disagreed with me previously.

Good on your wife, I admire her commitment and your honesty. Hand surgeon? That must take some real skill and I admire surgeons. I'm ok at a bit of DIY but I can't imagine having the motor control to deal with such small surgical movements. I'm a blunt hammer.

I've watched how some consultants hang their heads low when my wife spots them in the private practice we've went to. They don't like to be spotted, they shouldn't feel any shame. Don't misunderstand my dislike of a system as a dislike of those who are unwilling participants, it isn't. As for the willing participant supporters - fk them , I don't really mean that but I'm not 100% joking either. How to balance the fact that some will always be able to bypass vs the fact that some of them will suggest they're doing me a favour by bypassing is always going to be open to question no matter how often some think it shouldn't be questioned.

[ooid]

cheesejunkie said:

That’s one interpretation. Another is that I didn’t call anyone thick but pointed out that some are more entitled to be thick than others due to parental wealth.

There is no interpretation, you did called 'thick' and throw further assaults. You are still going on, quite awkward to say something like 'entitled to be thick due to parental wealth'

cheesejunkie said:

Private education doesn't exist in many countries. Were it not to exist here you can be damn sure public education would get more prominence. Some's unwillingness to understand that very simple point is, as mentioned, revealing.

Let me enlighten your ignorance on that subject. (can't help with others, you seem to be a lost cause on multi dimensions).

Finland, (non-private school system) has one of the most difficult admission process for its universities. Their young population has been behind in Europe for higher education access, as they had no chance to enter. Many chose to come to U.K. or Germany for that reason (well, I have educated a few, brilliant people).

[cheesejunkie]

ooid said:

cheesejunkie said:

That’s one interpretation. Another is that I didn’t call anyone thick but pointed out that some are more entitled to be thick than others due to parental wealth.

There is no interpretation, you did called 'thick' and throw further assaults. You are still going on, quite awkward to say something like 'entitled to be thick due to parental wealth'

cheesejunkie said:

Private education doesn't exist in many countries. Were it not to exist here you can be damn sure public education would get more prominence. Some's unwillingness to understand that very simple point is, as mentioned, revealing.

Let me enlighten your ignorance on that subject. (can't help with others, you seem to be a lost cause on multi dimensions).

Finland, (non-private school system) has one of the most difficult admission process for its universities. Their young population has been behind in Europe for higher education access, as they had no chance to enter. Many chose to come to U.K. or Germany for that reason (well, I have educated a few, brilliant people).

I'll let you enlighten me. I'll not say what I'm thinking whist you do but arrogant prick will be on the list of many other insults I've refused to use.

I did called did I? Call, not called. Insults not assaults. You're very entitled to be thick, is that a removal of your rights? Im enjoying the animosity, you aren't.

Keep trying to enlighten me. I really do like the people who tell me how I'm wrong but not those who think they're about to enlighten me as I'm enlightened and won't be convinced into believing in their prejudices.

I have two Finish nieces and nephews, don't try and tell me I'm uninformed. Have all the fun you want disagreeing.

Back on topic, how's your defence of others being disadvantaged through paying for your sprogs going? How's my cynicism going?