I am 100% in favour of making the genuinely rich pay more into society.
The problem that this kind of policy hits people who are not 'rich' and doesn't really raise much money relatively speaking

I may be ignorant about this, but why is the Taxpayer subsidising The rich with regard to private schools? they charge fees and are not funded by the Government?

Interesting that ReformUks stance is to actively encourage the use of private schools - by making them more affordable to more people - in the hope that more children use them, reducing the strain On the StateFunded 'free' schools.

I'm all up for charging the rich more tax, and on the surface VAT on a 'luxury' like a private school appears a good idea, but not if RefromUk are right and it just ends up flooding our grammer schools. the VAT increase will just get swallowed up building more schools and hiring and Training More teachers

"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"

A tax break?

This is adding VAT to that which was previously VAT exempt, like many other non luxury items.

Unless you think that education is a luxury?

I should also remind you that it was your precious Labour who destroyed the grammar school system, thus making a higher quality of education less available for those blessed with academic ability. This caused a lowering of standards.

The same old story under Labour.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (17 Jun 2024 3.01pm)

Yep. It's always been questionable IMO that private schools are mainly charities and therefore exempt from VAT, plus a whole host of other benefits. So in that regard, probably about time.

Choosing to send your kids to private school is a lifestyle choice. Any bleating about how unfair it is to suddenly be having to pay VAT is insane. If your kids have to move as a result, so be it. It's the risk you take – fees go up over time. The brightest kids will be on discounted scholarships anyway so it is survival of the fittest, and richest in action within the private school bubble, so in that sense it is mildly amusing that there are cries of 'unfair' across the parental demographic.

All that said, I'm not massively keen on the current implementation of this policy as reading around it seems that the net benefit to the state system will be about the same as if it hadn't been implemented at all.

There is also the other issue that some private schools may decide to pull out of facilities sharing with other state schools and reduce bursary places as a result. In other words begin to burn bridges with the state system that are currently very beneficial and advantageous to the government.

There is also no doubt that there will be more pressure put on the state system through kids either leaving or parents deciding they can't afford private education in the first place. This creates a displacement effect within state schools where kids who may have been in the middle of the pile now find themselves at the bottom. There is an argument to say that the funds generated will actually not be enough to cover the increased intake, but that's theory and we'll find out what actually happens when it happens.

Final point – apparently some schools may choose to absorb some of the increase as there will be sweeteners elsewhere that they can make money back on.

So yes, it is more ideological than practical, it could and should be implemented better, BUT it's probably about time private schools charity status was put under the lens.

So on balance I'm for it.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

That's a reasonable summary which I would broadly agree with.

I am still not convinced that the increased intake into state schools will be significant nor that the additional funds generated wouldn't cover it, but as you say, that's theory.

Private education is a luxury. Fact.

In reply to the different point you're making...

A utopia where all state schools have the same facilities as the private sector and compete accordingly for parents attention is pure fantasy, even if the education system was properly funded this wouldn't happen. Amusing that there is a distinct socialist and or communist tinge to your musings.

It would be great to pay teachers more and recruit more of them (and train them properly) as that would be the main route to improved standards. Any suggestion from Labour that the VAT increase will solve this is also fantasy... that's a big number, several orders of magnitude larger than 1.5bn. No party can afford that.

Also the performance of grammar schools is way overstated if you actually look into how the system worked, and the irony is that they created a two tier selective system within the state system anyway, that had its fair share of problem creation.

Instead of paying fees, parents that could afford it paid for private tutoring to get little middle class johnny in through the door. That plus being able to pay for a more expensive house to get closer to prime catchment areas. In other words, very similar to the private system vs state system now. The social mobility and educational accessibility argument with regard to grammars is totally flawed. Private schools, increased state funding or otherwise, ultimately those that earn more will always have better opportunities.

Doesn't mean people shouldn't try to make the approach better, but solving it is a fantasy.

The whole pining for grammar thing is mainly rose tinted nonsense.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (17 Jun 2024 3.46pm)

Edited by SW19 CPFC (17 Jun 2024 5.16pm)

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.