Private schools, times a changing?
Discussion
Our school is reorganising and changing its branding. All the changes are very positive and well timed, but there are increases across the board. I also feel that there has been a gradual cost cutting/control exercise ongoing. Noticeably, the teaching staff have more younger teachers taking first or second job. What they lack in experience is made up with strong enthusiasm.
Saw over the weekend that Huddersfield University are shedding 200 jobs, many academic, and reducing courses. We may yet see changes affecting universities.
Saw over the weekend that Huddersfield University are shedding 200 jobs, many academic, and reducing courses. We may yet see changes affecting universities.
My “tactic” is going to be to pay my kids school fees for the whole of the academic year 24/25 in September of this year. The school will be invoicing for fees in the academic year for which they are due, I think it is going to be very hard for that to be caught by a change in legislation.
With regards to future years my understanding is that as long as the money is paid before the legislation is announced it is expected that any anti-forestalling legislation will only stop money being paid in the window between the announcement of VAT and the legislation becoming active. I am not a tax expert but it is apparently very difficult to try and catch payments made before that as it has implications in other sectors. Nothing is guaranteed though.
With regards to future years my understanding is that as long as the money is paid before the legislation is announced it is expected that any anti-forestalling legislation will only stop money being paid in the window between the announcement of VAT and the legislation becoming active. I am not a tax expert but it is apparently very difficult to try and catch payments made before that as it has implications in other sectors. Nothing is guaranteed though.
Cheib said:
My “tactic” is going to be to pay my kids school fees for the whole of the academic year 24/25 in September of this year. The school will be invoicing for fees in the academic year for which they are due, I think it is going to be very hard for that to be caught by a change in legislation.
With regards to future years my understanding is that as long as the money is paid before the legislation is announced it is expected that any anti-forestalling legislation will only stop money being paid in the window between the announcement of VAT and the legislation becoming active. I am not a tax expert but it is apparently very difficult to try and catch payments made before that as it has implications in other sectors. Nothing is guaranteed though.
I've always been wary about paying in advance school fees, in case the school gets into trouble or pisses me off.With regards to future years my understanding is that as long as the money is paid before the legislation is announced it is expected that any anti-forestalling legislation will only stop money being paid in the window between the announcement of VAT and the legislation becoming active. I am not a tax expert but it is apparently very difficult to try and catch payments made before that as it has implications in other sectors. Nothing is guaranteed though.
This thread makes the assumption that Labour will win the next election and then bring in the VAT immediately. It may yet be discovered that Kier has a computer hard disc of inappropriate images of zoo sex and scat porn or, more disturbingly, Angie and him in flagrante delicto. Or they may come across a legal challenge of some sort that delays matters.
I am personally not making any plans based upon something that an as yet unelected party might do.
Louis Balfour said:
Cheib said:
My “tactic” is going to be to pay my kids school fees for the whole of the academic year 24/25 in September of this year. The school will be invoicing for fees in the academic year for which they are due, I think it is going to be very hard for that to be caught by a change in legislation.
With regards to future years my understanding is that as long as the money is paid before the legislation is announced it is expected that any anti-forestalling legislation will only stop money being paid in the window between the announcement of VAT and the legislation becoming active. I am not a tax expert but it is apparently very difficult to try and catch payments made before that as it has implications in other sectors. Nothing is guaranteed though.
I've always been wary about paying in advance school fees, in case the school gets into trouble or pisses me off.With regards to future years my understanding is that as long as the money is paid before the legislation is announced it is expected that any anti-forestalling legislation will only stop money being paid in the window between the announcement of VAT and the legislation becoming active. I am not a tax expert but it is apparently very difficult to try and catch payments made before that as it has implications in other sectors. Nothing is guaranteed though.
This thread makes the assumption that Labour will win the next election and then bring in the VAT immediately. It may yet be discovered that Kier has a computer hard disc of inappropriate images of zoo sex and scat porn or, more disturbingly, Angie and him in flagrante delicto. Or they may come across a legal challenge of some sort that delays matters.
I am personally not making any plans based upon something that an as yet unelected party might do.
As long as there isn't a snap election in the meantime, we'll probably wait until September to decide.
There are many parents choosing schools at the moment who are very worried about this punitive tax - I suspect many small private schools are already feeling the impact with lower applications.
The cost to taxpayers is going to be immense. It reminds me so much of monosyllabic union leaders closing factories down, grinning cheerfully that they've put hundreds out of work.
The cost to taxpayers is going to be immense. It reminds me so much of monosyllabic union leaders closing factories down, grinning cheerfully that they've put hundreds out of work.
Louis Balfour said:
Cheib said:
My “tactic” is going to be to pay my kids school fees for the whole of the academic year 24/25 in September of this year. The school will be invoicing for fees in the academic year for which they are due, I think it is going to be very hard for that to be caught by a change in legislation.
With regards to future years my understanding is that as long as the money is paid before the legislation is announced it is expected that any anti-forestalling legislation will only stop money being paid in the window between the announcement of VAT and the legislation becoming active. I am not a tax expert but it is apparently very difficult to try and catch payments made before that as it has implications in other sectors. Nothing is guaranteed though.
I've always been wary about paying in advance school fees, in case the school gets into trouble or pisses me off.With regards to future years my understanding is that as long as the money is paid before the legislation is announced it is expected that any anti-forestalling legislation will only stop money being paid in the window between the announcement of VAT and the legislation becoming active. I am not a tax expert but it is apparently very difficult to try and catch payments made before that as it has implications in other sectors. Nothing is guaranteed though.
This thread makes the assumption that Labour will win the next election and then bring in the VAT immediately. It may yet be discovered that Kier has a computer hard disc of inappropriate images of zoo sex and scat porn or, more disturbingly, Angie and him in flagrante delicto. Or they may come across a legal challenge of some sort that delays matters.
I am personally not making any plans based upon something that an as yet unelected party might do.
Louis Balfour said:
I've always been wary about paying in advance school fees, in case the school gets into trouble or pisses me off.
it is worth doing your homework on the school. My son was at a nursery attached to a pre school. I had done a deal that when he moved from the nursery to the school I would pay for all 3-4 years (can't remember how many) upfront for a discount. My son ended up being quite disabled so didn't make it to the school in the end, but in the last year at the nursery all the parents where summoned to an evening meeting at the school. Where it was announced the school had gone bankrupt and they had no options but too close with immediate effect.
If my son hadn't had his issues I would have lost all of the money I put in. Whole thing ended up being a total disaster.
I have since found out through mutual friends that a fellow parent actually orchestrated the final death of the place with some pretty machiavellian techniques.
Although by the sounds of it the place deserved to die by how badly run it was.
Louis Balfour said:
Cheib said:
My “tactic” is going to be to pay my kids school fees for the whole of the academic year 24/25 in September of this year. The school will be invoicing for fees in the academic year for which they are due, I think it is going to be very hard for that to be caught by a change in legislation.
With regards to future years my understanding is that as long as the money is paid before the legislation is announced it is expected that any anti-forestalling legislation will only stop money being paid in the window between the announcement of VAT and the legislation becoming active. I am not a tax expert but it is apparently very difficult to try and catch payments made before that as it has implications in other sectors. Nothing is guaranteed though.
I've always been wary about paying in advance school fees, in case the school gets into trouble or pisses me off.With regards to future years my understanding is that as long as the money is paid before the legislation is announced it is expected that any anti-forestalling legislation will only stop money being paid in the window between the announcement of VAT and the legislation becoming active. I am not a tax expert but it is apparently very difficult to try and catch payments made before that as it has implications in other sectors. Nothing is guaranteed though.
This thread makes the assumption that Labour will win the next election and then bring in the VAT immediately. It may yet be discovered that Kier has a computer hard disc of inappropriate images of zoo sex and scat porn or, more disturbingly, Angie and him in flagrante delicto. Or they may come across a legal challenge of some sort that delays matters.
I am personally not making any plans based upon something that an as yet unelected party might do.
The school gives a “discount” based on current investment rates for pre payment so I’d imagine 2 to 4 percent….that is effectively a tax free return so to me that’s like getting a 4 or 5 percent return. IF Labour gets in and levies VAT I am assuming fees increase by 10 to 14%….again to me that is post tax….I don’t know anywhere else I am can get a minimum return of 4 or 5 % return with 15 to 20% “upside”.
I guess what anyone does need to think about is what the likely implication is for their children’s particular schools. There are some schools that probably won’t survive.
Edited by Cheib on Sunday 5th May 07:58
Cheib said:
Louis Balfour said:
Cheib said:
My “tactic” is going to be to pay my kids school fees for the whole of the academic year 24/25 in September of this year. The school will be invoicing for fees in the academic year for which they are due, I think it is going to be very hard for that to be caught by a change in legislation.
With regards to future years my understanding is that as long as the money is paid before the legislation is announced it is expected that any anti-forestalling legislation will only stop money being paid in the window between the announcement of VAT and the legislation becoming active. I am not a tax expert but it is apparently very difficult to try and catch payments made before that as it has implications in other sectors. Nothing is guaranteed though.
I've always been wary about paying in advance school fees, in case the school gets into trouble or pisses me off.With regards to future years my understanding is that as long as the money is paid before the legislation is announced it is expected that any anti-forestalling legislation will only stop money being paid in the window between the announcement of VAT and the legislation becoming active. I am not a tax expert but it is apparently very difficult to try and catch payments made before that as it has implications in other sectors. Nothing is guaranteed though.
This thread makes the assumption that Labour will win the next election and then bring in the VAT immediately. It may yet be discovered that Kier has a computer hard disc of inappropriate images of zoo sex and scat porn or, more disturbingly, Angie and him in flagrante delicto. Or they may come across a legal challenge of some sort that delays matters.
I am personally not making any plans based upon something that an as yet unelected party might do.
The school gives a “discount” based on current investment rates for pre payment so I’d imagine 2 to 4 percent….that is effectively a tax free return so to me that’s like getting a 4 or 5 percent return. IF Labour gets in and levies VAT I am assuming fees increase by 10 to 14%….again to me that is post tax….I don’t know anywhere else I am can get a minimum return of 4 or 5 % return with 15 to 20% “upside”.
I guess what anyone does need to think about is what the likely implication is for their children’s particular schools. There are some schools that probably won’t survive.
Edited by Cheib on Sunday 5th May 07:58
Our school's board of govs did some stupid stuff a couple of years ago which resulted in lost education time. They still wanted us to pay for that time, to which my reply was FRO. If they already had my money I could not have done that.
Also, as you say, what if a school folds?
I will also not be surprised to see the government implement some anti-avoidance stuff to prevent parents doing exactly what you suggests.
C4ME said:
I keep seeing this posted, most recently on the Kier Starmer thread, but there is nothing to support the assertion. The costs are really not going to be immense but rather barely noticeable.
Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.
I think your last paragraph is correct, but for many it's an emotive issue. Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.
I've said on here loads of places won't even notice if every private went to the wall. Some will some won't.
Clearly if your one of the number who can't afford an extra 20% it's a big issue, but it really isn't to the vast majority in the country. Nor will they when if it's brought in.
But I don't think it will, its Labour's Rwanda policy.
Edited by borcy on Sunday 5th May 09:45
Edited by borcy on Sunday 5th May 09:46
C4ME said:
NDA said:
There are many parents choosing schools at the moment who are very worried about this punitive tax - I suspect many small private schools are already feeling the impact with lower applications.
The cost to taxpayers is going to be immense. It reminds me so much of monosyllabic union leaders closing factories down, grinning cheerfully that they've put hundreds out of work.
I keep seeing this posted, most recently on the Kier Starmer thread, but there is nothing to support the assertion. The costs are really not going to be immense but rather barely noticeable. The cost to taxpayers is going to be immense. It reminds me so much of monosyllabic union leaders closing factories down, grinning cheerfully that they've put hundreds out of work.
Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.
At the moment, LA funded schools receive their funding based on the number of children enrolled and registered in the school on a specific day each academic year. More pupils therefore - theoretically - means more income for the school. Given that, in many areas of the UK, we are in a demographic dip and school rolls are actually falling, so far so good.
The issues that will come are;
- Financially hollowed-out LAs struggling to find the money for these additional pupils. Given that education is a statutory provision, they will have to but what will they have to turn off to afford it?
- It is unlikely that these pupils will attract additional income for the school (pupil premium, FSM, Statemented special needs etc)
- The pupils will not arrive in one 'clean' intake in, say, reception/year 7/year 12 but will be pepperpotted through schools, causing significant resourcing challenges. Obviously, LAs will look to allocate additional pupils to schools that are under-roll but those schools will probably be under-roll for a reason, which won't sit well with parents
- Although demographics are entering a dip, year 8 and up are still very much the end of the demographic 'bulge' that came through at the end of the 00s and early 10s and, as such, finding places for children coming out of independent schools for A Levels or the beginning of the GCSE syllabus is going to be problematic
borcy said:
C4ME said:
I keep seeing this posted, most recently on the Kier Starmer thread, but there is nothing to support the assertion. The costs are really not going to be immense but rather barely noticeable.
Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.
I think your last paragraph is correct, but for many it's an emotive issue. Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.
I've said on here loads of places won't even notice if every private went to the wall. Some will some won't.
Clearly I've your one of the number who can't afford an extra 20% it's a big issue, but it really isn't to the vast majority in the country. Nor will they when if it's brought in.
But I don't think it will, its Labour's Rwanda policy.
PDF https://www.adamsmith.org/news/applying-vat-to-ind...
turbobloke said:
borcy said:
C4ME said:
I keep seeing this posted, most recently on the Kier Starmer thread, but there is nothing to support the assertion. The costs are really not going to be immense but rather barely noticeable.
Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.
I think your last paragraph is correct, but for many it's an emotive issue. Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.
I've said on here loads of places won't even notice if every private went to the wall. Some will some won't.
Clearly I've your one of the number who can't afford an extra 20% it's a big issue, but it really isn't to the vast majority in the country. Nor will they when if it's brought in.
But I don't think it will, its Labour's Rwanda policy.
PDF https://www.adamsmith.org/news/applying-vat-to-ind...
Maybe it's a net cost. It's not stopped govs before.
borcy said:
turbobloke said:
borcy said:
C4ME said:
I keep seeing this posted, most recently on the Kier Starmer thread, but there is nothing to support the assertion. The costs are really not going to be immense but rather barely noticeable.
Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.
I think your last paragraph is correct, but for many it's an emotive issue. Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.
I've said on here loads of places won't even notice if every private went to the wall. Some will some won't.
Clearly I've your one of the number who can't afford an extra 20% it's a big issue, but it really isn't to the vast majority in the country. Nor will they when if it's brought in.
But I don't think it will, its Labour's Rwanda policy.
PDF https://www.adamsmith.org/news/applying-vat-to-ind...
borcy said:
Maybe it's a net cost. It's not stopped govs before.
Too true.
turbobloke said:
borcy said:
turbobloke said:
borcy said:
C4ME said:
I keep seeing this posted, most recently on the Kier Starmer thread, but there is nothing to support the assertion. The costs are really not going to be immense but rather barely noticeable.
Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.
I think your last paragraph is correct, but for many it's an emotive issue. Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.
I've said on here loads of places won't even notice if every private went to the wall. Some will some won't.
Clearly I've your one of the number who can't afford an extra 20% it's a big issue, but it really isn't to the vast majority in the country. Nor will they when if it's brought in.
But I don't think it will, its Labour's Rwanda policy.
PDF https://www.adamsmith.org/news/applying-vat-to-ind...
borcy said:
Maybe it's a net cost. It's not stopped govs before.
Too true.Voters are often a blend of parties views, parties themselves are broad churches.
borcy said:
turbobloke said:
borcy said:
turbobloke said:
borcy said:
C4ME said:
I keep seeing this posted, most recently on the Kier Starmer thread, but there is nothing to support the assertion. The costs are really not going to be immense but rather barely noticeable.
Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.
I think your last paragraph is correct, but for many it's an emotive issue. Hating the policy because it hits you directly in the pocket is valid. Dressing it up as some pending catastrophe for the state sector is not.
I've said on here loads of places won't even notice if every private went to the wall. Some will some won't.
Clearly I've your one of the number who can't afford an extra 20% it's a big issue, but it really isn't to the vast majority in the country. Nor will they when if it's brought in.
But I don't think it will, its Labour's Rwanda policy.
PDF https://www.adamsmith.org/news/applying-vat-to-ind...
borcy said:
Maybe it's a net cost. It's not stopped govs before.
Too true.Voters are often a blend of parties views, parties themselves are broad churches.
It has backfired on Labour before and it may yet do so with this VAT ruse.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/may/24/c...
turbobloke said:
Indeed, it's nuanced, though there's plenty of evidence that Labour play the toff envy card on their rump as much as the Tories may well be aiming stuff at geckos...though there aren't many Tory geckos compared to Labour rumpies so it's not that viable as a vote winner.
It has backfired on Labour before and it may yet do so with this VAT ruse.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/may/24/c...
I suppose that's a matter of perception. But each to their own. It has backfired on Labour before and it may yet do so with this VAT ruse.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/may/24/c...
It might but a by election is quite different to what's happening now. If they bring it in early in the next parliament, it'll be 4 years before evidence of it backfiring and by then it'll be long forgotten to the vast majority of the electorate.
borcy said:
I suppose that's a matter of perception. But each to their own.
It might but a by election is quite different to what's happening now. If they bring it in early in the next parliament, it'll be 4 years before evidence of it backfiring and by then it'll be long forgotten to the vast majority of the electorate.
There's a decent body of opinion that it won't be priority number one, then again it's low hanging fruit and an item to tick off the list.It might but a by election is quite different to what's happening now. If they bring it in early in the next parliament, it'll be 4 years before evidence of it backfiring and by then it'll be long forgotten to the vast majority of the electorate.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff