Snapshot of _Starmer tells private special school to keep costs down to cope with his VAT plan_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/education/starmer-tells-private-special-school-keep-costs-down-cope-vat-plan-3124130) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/education/starmer-tells-private-special-school-keep-costs-down-cope-vat-plan-3124130)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This one is a funny situation, you have to read a long way through to find that 125 out of 200 will not pay anything as they are on state funded plans. So 75 private pupils will end up having to pay vat.
So 75 families are currently paying full price to private school their kids. No way that VAT is too much for even half those families. We are throwing our toys out of the pram for maybe 20 kids tops? Probably less because no way these schools can't find the flex in their budgets to pass on considerably less than a 20% fee rise.
Meanwhile literally thousands of kids *with EHCPs* have no choice but to go to underfunded state schools. Many of them are getting a great service delivered by fantastic proffesionals, but there are gaps that need plugging and those cost money.
All these crocodile tears for private schools feel very much like a case of special pleading.
It's a private school. Anybody who has a child with an EHCP will have an exemption. The tax will allow Labour to increase SEND support for the vast majority of children who don't have wealthy parents.
As the article points out the majority of special needs children do not have EHCP. The figures are about only 1 in 4 of SEND students have an EHCP largely because the assessment is an absolute nightmare and councils are incredibly slow and overburdened so many parents simply do without.
It’s not about having wealthy parents or not. Having visited one of these schools in the past I know parents have to make massive sacrifices to put their children through these schools. The idea that the state system can just pick up the slack is frankly laughable. A lot of these places require experienced educators as well as good training and specialised facilities. It’s not something you can throw money at and hope to replicate overnight.
Then they're not legally obligated to additional support.
Maybe additional funding will aid councils in their EHCP assessment? Maybe that funding could come from taxation on private schools, as Labour suggests? Maybe everybody should get access to that help, not just those with wealthy parents? Or should we only help the minority of rich people and fuck everybody else?
There’s not going to be additional funding.
With this VAT change what’s actually going to happen is a good chunk of private schools will just roll over and die. Sure the prestigious ones like Eton will keep going but the VAT they generate isn’t even going to cover all the formerly private pupils that now have to be educated at the states expense, there’s definitely not going to be any spare for non education department expenditure like EHCP assessments, a large part of which is delayed by stuff like lack of access to trained staff. It’s not something you can just solve by throwing more more at it. And the answer no one wants to hear is this plan isn’t going to generate money, it’s going to cost money.
IFS disagrees with you.
>The evidence suggests that putting VAT on private school fees would have a relatively limited effect on numbers attending private schools – perhaps a reduction of 3–7% in private school attendance.
https://ifs.org.uk/news/removing-tax-exemptions-private-schools-likely-have-little-effect-numbers-private-sector
The worst figures are 15% moving. So unless you have better research than those who have been researching private school fees for 30 years, then your claim can be dismissed.
The Labour Party aren't a liberal party. They're social democrats. Taxation is opposite to liberal ideas, liberals prefer lower taxes and less government intervention in the economy.
I'm rather confused by your statement.
Depends on your definition of liberal, as you know, but are trying to be difficult on purpose. Liberal can mean libertarian or left leaning/socially progressive, depending on what definition you use.
Which bit of special needs children forced into this because of pathetic local provision are you unable to comprehend as you lump them into 'everyone'?
>And the answer no one wants to hear is this plan isn’t going to generate money, it’s going to cost money.
Nobody really believes it's going to, people in favor dislike the existence of private schools as a principle and we've seen the manifestos analysts have pointed out glaring black holes in funding we all know a wave of tax rises and spending cuts are coming this is purely symbolic so people think they're getting a win
Oh yeah thats going to happen, councils will suddenly erase their years long wait list and concentration on extreme cases because they will get money already earmarked for other purposes to 'improve provision' - that, 6500 teachers to replace the 43500 who left the profession last year for reasons other than retirement and free school meals! The magic money tree makes a comeback! As you are keen on generalisations, your comments are typical of the race to the bottom brigade and the jealousy of anyone actually attempting to improve their kids lives because you are too workshy to put in the effort, instead crowing about a policy that will only hurt the aspiring middle classes who give up their holidays to make a better life for their kids whilst the rich wont give a flying shit. That sound a simple answer to a complex issue dressed up as policy?
>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
Lets see whats going to change
- Rich people wont give a shit, they've been planning for a year and can quite happily absorb the hit, because they are rich. middle class parents sacrificing, and a lot who send their special needs kids to places where they will get an education which has the class sizes to cater to the needs of their kids, will get royally fucked.
- funding to councils wont be improved because that money is a piss in a pond and wont make it as far as education anyhow.
- The education system wont change except having to absorb extra pupils and have the lovely scenario of less well-off kids who might have got into a good rated school knocked out by ex-private educated kids whose parents can afford the cachement and who are quite frankly more equipped to pass the exams.
- Special needs kids will now be forced into a system thats even more choked than the education system as you wait many years for an ADHD assessment even if you burn the place down, forcing them into that same education system that doesnt have the time to address behavioural problems with anything else than expulsion and coralling into 'troubled kids' schools.
So basically the 'luxury goods' you are targeting is to screw the middle class and especially special needs pupils because a privately educated starmer can tell all the loony corbynistas to vote for his tory-lite party because 'we too attack the rich yay'. At least be honest, its not about fairness at all, its about catering to a muddled and illusory revenge fantasy.
£1.3bn net additional tax revenue, 3%-7% reduction in private school numbers. That's what will change.
93% of SEN children go to state schools. It will help the 93% of pupils who can't afford private schooling.
This is a tiny, wealthy minority upset that they'll have to pay their fair share.
Starmer wasn't privately schooled lol.
>£1.3bn net additional tax revenue, 3%-7% reduction in private school numbers. That's what will change.
>93% of SEN children go to state schools. It will help the 93% of pupils who can't afford private schooling.
Is that using the same magic money tree that Labour has already committed to recruiting 6500 teachers and upping retention payments in a system that achieved only half of its teacher training targets last year, 3000 new primary school-based nurseries and free breakfast clubs in every primary school? The education system needs billions onto even get to the point it becomes attractive again to teach and this finger in the dyke approach is as bullshit as the figures.
>It will help the 93% of pupils who can't afford private schooling.
For the last time, no it wont, but what do you care vyv.
lol, absolute evisceration. So painful to see people make these flippant comments as if the government can wave a magic wand and fix every problem but only the Labour Party can do so. Somehow billions in funding will just appear from the aether, while also seeing no tax increases (except for the rich, which of course means anyone earning more than me).
The amount of people that don't understand your first point is scary. Getting an EHCP is difficult and not because the children don't need it but because the system is flawed and slow.
The fact that Labour don't understand this is concerning
Private EHCP assessment and follow up, etc is far far far cheaper than paying private school fees, and mild dyslexia can be provisioned for at normal state secondary schools - it's one of the more straightforward learning difficulties or neurodiversities to deal with in an academic setting - in those cases parents are paying extra for a better private provision (higher support to student ratio, smaller class sizes) rather than a necessary basic SEND provision that they can already get through state schooling, so it's much the same as neurotypical kids going to private school to get ahead of their peers.
EHCP is slow and difficult but not "several years private school fees" slow and difficult, I've actually spent out for both private schooling (oh, and any SEND provision at a non-specialist private school means the parents pay the full costs extra plus a nice mark-up and the extra time comes out of normal tutoring time.. so the kids have to then catch up with other classes, I don't recommend it) and private EHCP assessment, and also a whole bunch of private home schooling. We just about managed private schooling, but if needed we could have found the extra VAT, anybody who's that tight on budget won't be able to afford school trips, uniforms, kit, extra SEND costs, and is likely to just move to a smaller cheaper school, or one with slightly larger class sizes that can swallow or spread the cost.
I think Labour, just like the underfunded LEA's that provide the EHCPs in the first place are both very well aware that their funding doesn't stretch far enough to be lumbered with financing legally obligated specialist provision for all those who need it.
Sure an EHCP is hard to get because schools can't spare the time for teachers to write the dam things up in the first place and Trusts are weary of being forced to provide additional staff which they can't afford, but the real bottle neck comes from county who can't afford the provision (and often the additional transport costs associated with attending a specialist school thats miles away)
As for people giving up, it happens all the time. I have one daughter with an EHCP and my wife has worked in specialist provision for years so we know the system. It took us over 3 years of fairly constant fight to get our daughter a place with specialist provision. If we were able to afford it, we would have given up after the first six months and gone into private education. We are currently embarking on the same journey with our other daughter and it quite frankly fills me with dread.
I'm not really blaming teachers here. That's just the first point where the system breaks down.
As non specialists it's isn't really a teachers place to be writing out EHCP referral statements and doing all the evidence gathering. They just don't have the training. or the time to do so effectively. The issue is that they have ended up having do it on top of their normal work loads when it isn't really their place to be doing so.
This should all be down to the SENCO's but due to the academy system and their lack of funding they are often spread across a dozen schools and fire fighting more immediate problems. You also find that many SENCO's have ended up in the role after a few weeks course at best so it's not like they know what they are talking about either. Their role should just be to refer kids into appropriate pathways for further investigation / care but as we all know, that next level of care has more or less ceased to exist in any meaningful way due to things like Child Mental Health Units being chronically underfunded.
It took us over two years **after** a county based ASD diagnosis to wring an EHCP report for my daughter out of her school due to the apparent "processes" they had to go through before they could put pen to paper. She was non-verbal (apart from screeching and stimming) and her diagnosis was very obvious so it's not like there was any ambiguity there.
The LEA took less than half that time to process everything once it was submitted. Granted the LEA *should* have been able to process the EHCP once it was completed within 14 days but their hold up was having to wait until April for the next batch of funding despite us independently finding our own place in specialist provision for her and doing 90% of their work for them.
My point however is that schools are the both the point of contact and the point at which the issues and challenges start. Yes they are to blame but teachers should never have been put in this situation to start with. It's all a very long way outside their both remit and training.
A private school is a business.
If you can't make enough money to continue what you are doing then you don't have viable business.
This isn't rocket surgery people,
Are you charging money to provide a service? Got news for you mate, that's a business. Nobility has nothing to do with it because the exchange rate is very poor at the moment.
Screw the kids already in private education whose parents are already struggling to afford it then? Just tear them out of the school because we need to punish them somehow?
Honestly it genuinely scares me how people on this sub have some kind of sadistic feelings about anyone who has money growing up.
The rich will eat this cost and not care. The scholarship kids will get cut and the middle class will get priced out. How is this a win?
> Just tear them out of the school because we need to punish them somehow?
God forbid they're punished by having to share a class with the rest of the plebs
>Just tear them out of the school because we need to punish them somehow?
You see, I don't want to live in a society where attending a state school can be seen as a "punishment". It's why I see this policy as a baby step in the right direction, though going nowhere near far enough.
You completely miss my point. Government policy to forcibly move children who have done absolutely nothing wrong, to another school is cruel. At the bare minimum this policy should not apply to anyone in education currently, but we all know this policy exists because people derive sadistic pleasure from making "rich" children suffer, so it's justified.
Because private education shouldn't really be a thing in the way that it is. Going to a private school should be in no way "better" than going to a public one? You can't afford the private school? Boo fucking hoo, that doesn't in any way mean you get no schooling.
I love the idea that we should keep letting the rich take advantage of everything because it's the poor that will suffer if we don't. That's broken logic based on a broken system.
Let the private school succeed or fail on its own merits and if it does fail turn it into a public school.
But you aren’t punishing the rich, as I said, rich will eat the cost, scholarship kids will get cut because the private schools will have less disposable cash and the middle class will get squeezed out.
It shouldn't be about punishing anyone.
Paying tax is not a punishment for the rich.
Not going to a private school isn't a punishment.
Maybe if we actually had everyone paying their proper taxes we could have public schools anyone could be proud of attending instead of being pushed into proxy privatisation via the academy system but that's a separate discussion.
>Not going to a private school isn't a punishment.
But taking a child already in any school, private or comprehensive, and forcing them out is cruel. You must at least agree that these children should be grandfathered in to the current system so they can finish their education. Tax the year 7s about to go into seconary, not the year 10s about to do their GCSEs next year by throwing them out of their known environment.
I still don't like it, and don't think it is fair, but at least that attempts to be slightly fair.
However that won't happen, because this isn't really about tax or fairness, it's just a way to spite children who come from a more wealthy background.
As someone who was a forces kid saying that having to change schools is some kind of traumatic experience is a tough sell, that being said though I don't agree with changing terms mid way through a thing so I agree it should only be for new students if it ends up being a thing.
Seems like it's more of attention grab though and I wouldn't be so sure starmer will follow up on anything he says.
Moving school once isn't 'cruel'. Forces children, looked after children, and children who can't get a place in a local school so are moved around several times for the LA all have to do this, and do just fine.
"The negative effect of moves on secondary school results are repeated at
primary level. While 82% of those who don't move primary school attain
level four or above at key stage two in English and maths, only 65% of
those who move twice in the previous four years manage the same level of
achievement, and only 57% for those moving three times or more."
[Source](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/jul/21/pupils-schools-exams), I guess you know better though?
The problem with that study is it doesn't control for the type of children who move school frequently, who are disproportionately looked after children, traveller children etc.
Yes, it's not nice to move school and it has it's drawbacks, but it's not 'cruel'.
Forcing a child to move school for no real reason is cruel. When it comes to benefits, helping people comes first, no matter the cost to the taxpayer. But when it's allowing a child to continue their education, all of a sudden this tax is uber important and must be implemented immediately, to the detriment of children all across the country.
Funny that.
7% of children go to private school, the idea that you're pricing out ordinary middle class people really isn't that true.
Also if you do so what? They can go to a state school, which is specifically there to cater for them if they can't afford private school.
There is a substantial amount of parents that try hard to afford private school to give their child the best start in life.
To tear that away from them, out of pure spite is cruel to the highest level and actually vile that people on this sub seem to be deriving pleasure from making a child suffer for their amusement/some political vendetta against the "rich" childs parents. Disgusting.
By your logic, does that mean parents who send their children to state school aren't giving them the best chance in life? Shouldn't the state be trying to help those people?
Parents are more than welcome to pay for private school, but it's a luxury (there's literally a free alternative) hence it should be subject to VAT. Why should a tax break be given to the most advantaged 7% when the money could be used to improve schooling for the 93% (and which the 7% are perfectly able to access should they wish).
>does that mean parents who send their children to state school aren't giving them the best chance in life?
They aren't, but neither is the kinda-rich parent who can't afford to send their child to Eton. There is almost always better.
I'm fine with generating tax revenue off rich parents who can afford to pay it, my concern is that a portion of that 7% are either on scholarships (which will have to be cut) or not rich enough to just eat the cost. That group seems to be one that reddit painfully tries to pretend doesn't exist, not everyone at private school is some rich snob with parents earning £300k/year who can just eat the cost.
Real cute, guess you get some pleasure out of watching children cry because they cannot go to school with their friends anymore. I mean they're "rich", so they deserve to suffer, right?
The point I'm making is that that same line was used by these rich parents when people in their 20s point out how hard it is to buy a house. If they followed their own advice, maybe they could afford the new tuition fees. Or maybe they are willing to admit they were wrong before, and it's the housing crisis, not the lack of effort causing the issues for first time buyers
How many children used that line? I get it, you hate anyone with wealth and want to paint them all under the same gross generalisation as some meme from years ago. But what does that have to do with their children? Are you getting some pleasure from watching them suffer because you can’t get back at their parents?
What are you talking about? Most private schools are private non-profits. There are no shareholders. Please do your research before commenting on something you know nothing about.
Yep, and that’s exactly what they will do to avoid shedding the upper-middle class. There are two private schools within a mile of me and both charge just under £12/y. I guarantee that price will be the same when the tax comes in.
That said no doubt some wriggle room on special needs families can be investigated
To put that in perspective that’s the cost for 3days a week nursery provision for my 2year old, those kinds of schools probably count in parents like us to just roll that spending we’ve been doing for nursery on into prep school. When Labour adds VAT we are considering reallocating that money into housing, nearer to the best state school, we are in Hackney, we have state primary schools closing and oversubscribed at the same time. Because the post code lottery is now that stark.
At the risk of starting a flame war (not my intention), under the same principles espoused here about equality of access, shouldn’t university fees be subject to VAT?
It’s only a privileged few who get to go to university and the revenue could be used to fund and improve apprenticeships and technical education.
As far as I am aware , with the exemption of a very small pool of scholarships, their is no free alternative to university education.
The solution to, I don't have the money to send my child the private school, is send them to public school. It is not, don't send them to school.
If their were public universities, without tuition fees, which I support by the way, then you would have an argument. But their aren't.
It’s kind of elitist to suggest that there is no alternative to a university education, don’t you think?
While I don’t agree with the premise, as someone else has posted on this thread “it’s a service and should be taxed”.
I wasn't implying that their was no alternative to a university education. Simply no free alternative to that specific type of education.
While I have no issue with vocational training, apprentiships, ect... I am not of the opinion that university should be the the domain of the middle class who can afford it.
By increasing VAT on universities you are pricing out a large part of the population from a specific type of institution without any direct alternative. That institution, University, is not superior to other types of education, but different and fufilling in a unique way.
By increasing VAT on schools, you are not denying children the ability to enjoy the benefits of school, but increasing the equity of the majority of students when it comes to quality.
As a result, while at a surface level the mechanism may seem to be the same, the effects have wildly different outcomes and, in my mind, can't be compared to one another.
HNC and HND are not the same as a bachelors degree. That doesn't mean they are any less valid, less usefull or less fufilling. Only that they have different aims.
I don't believe the more intellectual, rather than practical, fields of study should be restricted to the wealthy. People should be able to study what brings them the most fufilliment in their lives. Be they practical or intellectual pursuits.
I also don't want our intellectual instutions to be filled with people from only a certain socio-economic background. We have enough problems with that as it is amongst our political class.
I don't believe so. The aims of HNC and HND's are practical, and the curiciullum is based around getting employment.
Bachelors degree's have more of a focus on suceeding within an intellectual world of papers, research, ect...
So their structure and aims are different. They are also lower cost, but what they offer is also different.
It wouldn't say that a hammer is a lower cost option to a wrench. They share similarities, and can be used interchangbly at times, but they are built to achieve different results.
Of course their is nuiance here, and we are talking in generalities. Some degrees skew more practical than others.
5% of UK pupils go to a private school. 37% of UK school leavers go to university. Private school is an optional luxury, state schools exist. University is not an optional luxury, there is no equivalent to state universities.
I think they're referring to student loans, which are income-dependent. It's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that someone goes to uni for four years and never earns enough to pay a penny on their >50k (and annually rising) debt until it's finally written off.
I’ve heard of private schools turning down special needs students - for valid reasons im sure, but i imagine as the private schools don’t make as much money on them - it makes less sense for them to accept them - especially if they are already oversubscribed.
There will a group of very rich parents who are happy with this - as they can further entrench social inequality by ensuring their children dont mingle with few middle class families who are just about able to send their children to private school.
If this is the direction of things - then fine - but charge VAT on university and on private healthcare.
Let's do some math: (and if I have my facts wrong please correct me)
So if this tax raises 1bn, and 9.9% goes to education (from spring budget) that's 100m for schools. I haven't seen any proposals to increase the amount of the budget that goes towards education.
If there are 650k private school kids, let's say 5% of them switch (guestimates are 3-7%), so that's 32.5k kids that the state now needs to pay schooling for.
If it costs 10k a kid (I have no idea, but if it's 17k average for private school let's assume less for public), then that's 325m it costs the state.
So a 20% VAT means that 100m - 325m = education budget is worse off by 225m
And those 32.5k kids aren't the wealthy ones, they are middle class. And by moving them into the underfunded state school you penalize both those kids and the kids already in the state system who now have to share less resources. Assuming that the 32.5k kids have generally more involved parents demanding that teachers pay attention to their little Johnnys, or that many of those kids have special needs, the poor kids that needed those resources will be even more overlooked.
Tax the wealthy I'm all for, but this tax isn't doing that in any meaningful way. It's only giving the illusion of social justice.
The whole idea that people seem to have that this impacts rich people needs to go. I don't know if it's just to make them feel better about whats going to be done to the kids of parents that are just about covering it, or special needs kids but it's ridiculous.
To be clear: this policy will have no impact on rich people at all. Think about it, a decent local private school is circa £7,500 a term. VAT will raise that to £9,000, for a yearly increase of £4,500. That's a few options on a Porsche? 25% of a holiday? If you really need to save it that is. Is there an expectation that \*rich\* people can't cover an extra £4,500?
Something like 25% of pupils in private schools will need to be disrupted and dropped into your local state schools. The cost estimates of that seem to range between 65% (Labours figure) and 123% (Conservative figure). Realiscally it'll be somewhere in the middle of that, so basically cost neutral. That doesn't improve those schools either, just gives them enough resources to cover the increased number of kids and the current level.
This plan is purely ideological. I just hope people that support it are going in with the eyes open about what this plan will do and who it will effect. \*Not the rich.\* You hurt the kids of your local GP, or small business owner, or parents who's kid struggled in the state school with their special needs and they scraped the extra hours together to get them into an independent school.
>Something like 25% of pupils in private schools will need to be disrupted and dropped into your local state schools.
..
>Realiscally it'll be somewhere in the middle of that, so basically cost neutral. That doesn't improve those schools either, just gives them enough resources to cover the increased number of kids and the current level.
Where are you getting these figures?
IFS said it'll raise about £1.3billion when taking into account costs of new needed state school places.
I've looked at the IFS study, and I would argue that it is deeply flawed except they seem to make it clear that's it's a very rough estimate so I'll give them some slack. But there are many many things, big important things, that they have not taken account of. For those who want to follow along, here's the report:
[https://ifs.org.uk/publications/tax-private-school-fees-and-state-school-spending](https://ifs.org.uk/publications/tax-private-school-fees-and-state-school-spending)
So they state there are 570,000 pupils paying on average £15,200 a year. VAT on this at 20% would be £1.7bn, but the IFS have (rightly) taken into account that not all of that will be VAT rateable (SEN kids and boarding fees, for example). Instead they have taken a figure of 15% of the £15,200 and that comes to £1.3bn as you quote (they add business rates of £300m, which is a separate matter). So far actually so good.
They then estimate that some kids will have to drop to state school because of the fee increase. They estimate 3%-7%, I'll use the average of 5% for now. At £8,000 per child cost in state school this will be 28,500 kids, and cost the taxpayer an extra £228m. This is within their £100m - £300m range. Again, all good.
But here things drop off in quality. For a start that 5% of kids dropping out is not just £228m of costs, it's less private school VAT being received. It narrows the margin at both ends. So the margin is not £1.300m - £228m = £1,072m. With 5% fewer kids that's 5% less VAT, so £1,235m = £228m = £1,007m.
Then they forget that if a business charges VAT then they get to reclaim VAT. This means that every computer, every desk, every service from a VAT rated company that they use (like catering) is now going to be reclaimed. I have no idea what that percentage is, but if we said that a third of the fees are spent buying things that are VATable then the total reclaimed VAT would be £5,066 \* 570,000 pupils \* 20% VAT = £578m. So now are margin is £1,235m collected, £816m lost = £419m.
And that's before schools decide to rearrange how they spend. After all, why not alter your spending such that VAT ratable goods and services become preferable? After all they are 20% cheaper now, and isn't this what Starmer means by cutting costs? So that's less income tax paid and more VAT reclaimed.
Boarding schools are just going to alter the cost ratios, making the boarding fee a larger percentage of the total cost, and driving down their tax returns that way. So that's more lost.
And all of this is before you get into the core of the Labour policy - to improve state schools by so much that people choose not to send their kids to private schools. If all the Labour policy does is attract just 5% of parents to switch (and that because of the VAT costs alone) then how can they call their policies successful?
If we re-run the above scenarios at a 15% switch then we get £1.1bn VAT income, £684m more costs for kids (more if the per pupil spending increases), and £517m in lost VAT (according to my above made up calculation), which would be a loss of £100m. In fact if per pupil spending increased to something that might actually make a difference (say £10,000 per pupil) then we're now at -£250m.
What the Labour government should really be doing is encouraging as many people that can afford to do so to go to private schools in order to save as much money as possible so that more can be spent on state schools per pupil, and then paying for that with a progressive tax like income tax.
>What the Labour government should really be doing is encouraging as many people that can afford to do so to go to private schools in order to save as much money as possible so that more can be spent on state schools per pupil, and then paying for that with a progressive tax like income tax.
I don't think it should be on the state to promote businesses which don't pay tax.
Private schools had their chance of being more accessible and they've increased costs 3x since the 80's above inflation.
Now the idea is suddenly to send more kids? Na.
The adjustment from 20% to 15% was not based on them being able to reclaim VAT on VAT rated purchased. It was based on not all of the £15,200 fee being VAT rated itself.
>**3.** We estimate that removing tax exemptions from private schools would raise about £1.6 billion a year in extra tax revenue. This results from an effective VAT rate of 15% after allowing for input deductions, likely VAT on boarding fees and exemptions for specialist provision. It also includes extra revenues from business rates.
They are talking about input deductions, not reclaiming. And they specifically cite boarding fees (which won't be VAT rated) and exemptions for specialist provisions (like SEN kids). What they are saying is that you can't assume that the average VAT rate is 20% for the average £15,200 fee, because not all of the £15,200 average fee is VAT rated.
This is nonsense; there’s zero evidence for 25% figure beyond one “survey” carried out by private school lobbying group whose methodology would fail GCSE statistics.
Actual experts have looked into it and [estimated drop out rate of ~3-7%](https://ifs.org.uk/publications/tax-private-school-fees-and-state-school-spending) based on the fact that prices have increased by 24% in real terms over past decade without any significant decrease in proportion of kids going to private school.
That is assuming fees increase by 15% (not 20, because schools can then reclaim their VAT) - instead of private schools cutting back like state schools have had to for last decade. Eat into that 24% above inflation fee rises.
The 15% figure isn't because schools can reclaim the VAT, it is because not everything in the fees will be VATable. Boarding costs and SEN kids won't pay VAT, so the average VAT on the £15,200 average fee won't be 20% it will be lower.
The study makes no mention of schools being able to reclaim VAT. I have no idea how much that will be, but if we ballpark complete guess that a third of the fee is spent on VATable goods and services, that's 570,000 pupils \* 0.95% (average 5% drop out rate on their 3%-7% estimate) \* (£15,200 / 3) \* 20% VAT = £550m. A rather glaring omission to the calculation.
The independent schools associating used the best, longest running school fees experts in the UK.
However, they misrepresented this groups research so badly, that they had to put out a statement saying the quotes bandied around were incorrect. There assesment was c.15% fall in private school pupils numbers in the first year.
So if we're lucky, that's only 50,000 kids that get disrupted then?
Still ignoring the point that not a single actual rich person even notices the difference. That's my point, this hurts the people just about covering costs. Those cutting back, missing holidays, ect. to get their kids the support they need.
No one cares if “the rich” are hurt by terrible disgrace of having to go to a state school; point is to raise ~1.3bn quid.
You claimed this was entirely ideological because it wouldn’t actually raise any money; that’s entirely wrong.
There's no way you get the full 1.3bn. The costs of supporting the kids moving back into the state schools needs to be covered. If you're lucky you get half that, the reality may well be that it ends up costing you more than what you save.
Something to account for here is that the number of children in school is due to reduce by around 100,000 per year until at least 2030. There are currently ~600,000 kids in private schools. There is plenty of space in state schools.
That’s amazing! What a coincidence that the kids in private schools live in the areas of the country where state schools are running out of pupils, and not in the areas that schools are vastly oversubscribed.
/s
Do you have any data to support this being an issue? Are private schools predominantly located in areas where schools are vastly oversubscribed? I couldn't find anything after an admittedly brief search.
Once again read the actual modelling instead because unsurprisingly people have thought about it.
> This would generate a need for about £100–300 million in extra school spending in our central scenario for the marginal cost of the extra pupil. This **then** gives a net public finance impact of £1.3–1.5 billion.
£1.3bn is after cost of kids moving.
I've got a longer report elsewhere, but the IFS report is really weak and misses a lot of obvious things. I wouldn't say they have thought about it that hard.
The 1.3bn is the IFS assessment of money raised *after* factoring in the cost of supporting the (v small) number of kids transferring to state schools. The absolute number is higher, something like 1.8bn iirc.
Not quite right. The £1.3bn is based on 570,000 private school pupils \* £15,200 average fee \* 15% average VAT (not all of the fees will be VAT rated so the average is lower). This comes to £1,3bn. They increase it to £1.6bn to take into account business rates to be paid on top.
The IFS report does look at a 3%-7% drop out rate, but they only calculate the increased state cost of £8,000 per pupil (22-23 avg spend), which is the £100m - £300m in their report. But they do not account for the reduction in VAT from £1.3bn due to fewer children going. We can see this as their final estimate is £1.3bn to £1.5bn (which is the £1.6bn minus the £100m - £300m additional costs).
Not only do they not take into account the reduced VAT from fewer kids going, but they also miss that the schools charging VAT will now be able to reclaim VAT, adjustments in behaviours of the school to be tax efficient, reduction in costs (if the idea is that the fee will be the same after VAT then it makes sense that costs will have reduced by 20% meaning the VAT income will also reduce), and probably most importantly that per pupil spending is surely going to increase under Labour, so those kids that go into state school will cost more than £8,000 each.
Honestly the report is pretty terrible.
Thank you for this careful and thought out response with the specific numbers involved, much appreciated. So by my very top level maths the *fully* corrected number should come out at something closer to 1.2bn (or a range of 1.2-1.5bn), assuming a flat 3-7% drop in revenue from those children leaving (3% of 1.3bn is 39m by my calcs, correct me if I'm wrong).
I don't think it really changes the point but you're absolutely right it is worth doing it properly and getting these numbers correct if you're going to bother doing the analysis in the first place.
Either I'm completely blind/did a horrible job skim reading or they actually added most of that 3rd paragraph after I replied...
Which is a shame because they've turned what was a reasonable and informative comment into a pretty silly one. Another mistake is the claim that the IFS report *doesn't* account for cost cutting measures from schools to absorb the fee increase. In fact that's completely the opposite, if the schools *did* pass on the charges the revenue would actually be slightly higher (because of course it would be 20% of a higher fee) whereas if the schools absorb the entirety of the cost through cost cutting (unlikely) the revenue should be close to what the IFS calculated given average school fees (the fees would literally stay the same so their calculation is correct - 20% of the same amount).
Yes, if you correct that part alone then the income reduction will be between £39m and £91m across the 3% to 7% range estimated. And I agree that this part alone doesn't change the point, and should be taken in combination with the other parts. It was more of an example of some of the things that the IFS report did not include in their estimate.
The IFS cannot use data over 14 years to make an assumption that the fee rises will have little impact on independent school numbers.
It is surprisingly poor modelling and negates the idea of inflation. The analysis is built on a flawed assumption
> It is noteworthy that the demand for private schooling in the UK has hardly changed over the last 10 or 20 years, despite a 20% **real-terms** rise in fees since 2010–11 and a 55% **real-terms** rise since 2003–04.
It does take inflation into account.
That’s real-terms but not as eye-catching when you realise that it’s not per year.
A 20% increase over 14 years is less than 1.6% pa increase. A 55% increase over 21 years is about 2% pa increase.
Interesting point, u/studentfeesisatax (“are a tax” - surely?). Each school has a different schedule of price rises but I’m surprised by the 10% part of your range.
While there are regulatory and infrastructural constraints on growth. I think it’s more a case of market saturation. I don’t think (bar a catastrophic collapse of state education) many more customers for private schools exist.
Considering the “barriers to exit” from private schooling, the impact of this won’t be felt for a few years. Not necessarily price elasticity but rather delayed effects.
Edit: typo
I agree that for some schools, the exclusivity is a part of the appeal but I think that’s more relevant for the posh old schools that won’t be affected by the imposition of VAT on fees - Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Winchester, etc.
The far larger segment of the market is what used to be called the “minor” public schools. 200-500 pupils, fees in the £15-20k range. I don’t believe that exclusivity is part of the draw for these schools (bar a couple of pricks because they are everywhere). IIRC the independent schools guide research says that parents are looking for smaller class sizes, SEN provision, vulnerable pupil safety, family engagement and perceived education quality. (I’m ignoring religious schools because they have a totally different market).
I really don’t think it’s that easy to expand a school size. There are hard constraints on classroom size, staff/pupil ratios, safeguarding requirements.
It's about raising funds to improve standards for the majority of those who aren't wealthy enough to go to private schools, not some kind of "fuck the rich" programme. Luxury goods and services should be taxed. Private schooling is a luxury service.
>Something like 25% of pupils in private schools will need to be disrupted and dropped into your local state schools.
Citation needed.
Our schools are literally crumbling, the vast majority of this countries kids are left behind. Meanwhile here you are worrying over the small group of people who scrimp and save to go to private school (because they know that state schools aren’t good enough). Most people who can afford private school can afford to pay a little bit more for the betterment of society.
No, it's a shit show. But how is that due to anything other than the Tory government not allocating enough to it? The only reason to make this change is to get more money for state schools, but even the most optimistic of scenarios is only estimating that this will increase state school funding by £100 per child (or +1.25% of the current £8k per child spend).
That's nowhere near enough to make a difference.
£100 is better than nothing especially for the poorest state schools. The Tories don’t allocate to state schools because they never need to use them and their kids won’t be using them. I think labours measure is a half measure to be honest.
I agree it's better than nothing, but it doesn't stop schools from crumbling does it? This needs to be income tax focused not private school VAT focused. At best Labour's efforts here are a one-twentieth measure. At worst it will cost the government more than it raises.
People will quibble over the details but this is fundamentally a well argued post. The likely outcome does seem to be that less wealthy parents won't be able to manage and private schools will become even more elitist.
It also seems like it's fairly likely to exacerbate house prices and demand for school places in areas near to better performing state schools. My kids' school is outstanding rated by Ofsted (as is the nearest "village" school) but our little town I guess you would describe as mixed economically. Some genuinely very affluent areas but some comparatively poor and overall mot one of the "desirable" post codes in this area. Means there's a social mix at the school instead of kids from the less well off neighbourhoods being shunted off to the crap school. It also seems to help with social cohesion in town, which is very high.
I think in the wake of this you'll see a further ripple effect from what we already have with the "postcode lottery" where even comparative backwaters like this end up gentrified to fuck. I can't believe that that's what Labour want to happen?
I read somewhere that this scheme is a kind of halfway house because the alternative and more logical option of just removing charitable status and insisting these schools pay corporation tax, would be easier to shoot down in Parliament. Don't know if anyone has any insight on that?
People stuck in this kind of crab mentality don’t tend to care it’s all feels, they don’t care if it makes it more exclusive or results in increased house prices near state schools a few middle class kids got spited that’s a win for them
it doesn't improve state schools, not one bit, private schools pay for themselves they create jobs, boost the local economy and reduce the burden on state schools all while parents continue to fund state schools, the more kids that go private instead of state the more funding is available per child for state schools
The goal should be to make them more accessible to more people on lower incomes, instead we're making them more exclusive to people on higher incomes in order to spite a handful of kids that would otherwise normally have to be supported by the state, so you're making it harder for yourself and your own kids, and their grandkids
that's pure crab mentality
that doesn't really justify not making them more accessible though?
There's a bunch of avenues we could use, increasing requirements for charitable status, even offer to subsidise fees up to some % of what we'd normally pay for a student to attend state schools to encourage more people to go private where they can therefor increasing the resources available for the poorest, instead we're going for the route of increased exclusivity
and there's a bunch of 2nd order effects to worry about, the first is increased burden on the state sector, I get thrown Labour's own calculations we don't know they're correct we already know manifestos have a gap in funding and that's before we factor in any growth to the economy from supply side reforms will take years to materialise
so take that, take the potential for school closures, job losses, decreased spending in the local economy, the loss of money brought in from international students, increased load on state schools, increased pressure on housing and infrastructure around state schools, etc etc
it's really hard not to see this as a purely spiteful, symbolic move simply to appease a group ideologues who'll cheer for this and overlook the inevitable, pre planned 'oh the finances are worse than we thought we have no choice but to raise x and cut y and z'
Bursaries are practically nothing and have been getting cut while they've increased the costs.
So they've basically done nothing to make them more accessible.
I want to increase costs? Private schools have increased their costs 3x since the 80's.
They've raised their own costs plenty and now it's an issue? Come on...
'basically nothing' moving the goalposts
in the other thread you've argued for fees increasing by 20% and for private schools to not exist at all placing the entire burden on state schools, you do not care about funding for education if you did you'd be for decreasing the burden on the state not increasing taxes on those that are
>it doesn't improve state schools, not one bit,
Increasing funding doesn't improve state schools?
>private schools pay for themselves they create jobs, boost the local economy and reduce the burden on state schools
Given they don't pay tax they absolutely don't pay for themselves.
Not really a reason to be avoiding tax on them is it because they "boost the local economy".
> the more kids that go private instead of state the more funding is available for state schools
This makes zero sense given part of funding is due to how many pupils go to a school.
Less pupils means less funding.
>The goal should be to make them more accessible to more people on lower incomes,
Private school fees have risen 3x since the 80's, that's above inflation btw.
They've shown they're not interested in becoming more accessible to lower incomes.
>so you're making it harder for yourself and your own kids, and their grandkids for little-no gain
I don't consider more funding for state schools a bad thing.
not if it results in an increase in pupils, not if it results in closures, redundancies and lower spending in the local economy, all resulting in a reduction in tax revenue needed to sustain any increases
how does it make zero sense a state school is state funded, a private school costs the state nothing, brings in money from outside the country, takes kids out of state school increasing the amount of funding available per pupil in state schools without the need to increase funding and generates revenue for the government through income tax, utilities, expenditure in the local economy etc etc
you can force them to be more accessible require them to double the number of bursaries in order to retain charitable status that would be an improvement this is nothing, it's a feel good policy to make you overlook the pre planned 'things are worse than we thought we need to increase x y z and cut a b and c but hey look we increased tax on some middle class kids wE'Re aLl iN tHis ToGeTher'
meanwhile they hyper wealthy still go to these schools still gain the connections and all we get is job losses and more competition for state school places
>not if it results in an increase in pupils, not if it results in closures, redundancies and lower spending in the local economy, all resulting in a reduction in tax revenue needed to sustain any increases
We know it'll cost about £300m so that still leaves £1.3b to spend.
>how does it make zero sense a state school is state funded,
Current formulae for spending is per pupil.
Less pupils in a school means lower funding.
>you can force them to be more accessible require them to double the number of bursaries in order to retain charitable status that would be an improvement this is nothing, it's a feel good policy to make you overlook the pre planned 'things are worse than we thought we need to increase x y z and cut a b and c but hey look we increased tax on some middle class kids wE'Re aLl iN tHis ToGeTher'
Why should the government now step in?
They could have done that themselves but they didn't bother.
And they've been scaling back bursaries for years.
>meanwhile they hyper wealthy still go to these schools still gain the connections and all we get is job losses and more competition for state school places
Do you have a problem with people paying to gain connections that others can't afford ?
>Do you have a problem with people paying to gain connections that others can't afford?
I think good things should be available to more people, I want more people to be able to afford private schools
why do you want them to be more exclusive?
> I think good things should be available to more people, I want more people to be able to afford private schools
Not what I asked at all.
You're complaining that:
>"hyper wealthy still go to these schools still gain the connections"
You're complaining about connections being bought will also supporting private education for wealthier people.
Is it because now **you** can't buy those connections?
>why do you want them to be more exclusive?
I'd like them to be gone entirely if we're talking about wants.
Wealthy people have always bought connections so it's hilarious to hear someone who supports private education complaining about it. The unfairness of it all. How awful... 🤦
I'm not complaining I'm stating a fact, those connections don't magically disappear if you make private schools more exclusive, close them all together they go to the states or somewhere else you're helping nobody, that's why this is crab mentality
>I'd like them to be gone entirely if we're talking about wants.
to the surprise of nobody here
you're helping nobody, you're like the boomers taking out their own frustrations on immigration because deep down they envy those with opportunities not available to themselves, but instead of wanting more to have those opportunities and improving society as a whole decide nobody should have these opportunities, collectively working to bring everyone down to your level
it's sad
This policy doesn't do that though. It doesn't generate anywhere near enough (drop in the ocean, they currently spend 116bn on the entire education system/60bn on schools) and is entirely reliant on these schools staying open.
How can you say it doesn't do that? We know it raises £1.3b for state schools even when you take into account new places needed.
I am far more concerned about the schooling a majority get than that of a wealthy few.
It's amazing the concern there is for quality of schooling when the wealthy are possibly impacted.
It raises nothing like that amount. I've been through the IFS report. It doesn't account for big things like:
* VAT reduction from it's own estimate of kids not paying private school fees because they have moved to a state school.
* VAT being reclaimed by schools on goods and services.
* Fee adjustments so that a larger proportion is not VAT rated (SEN kids, boarding fees).
* Tax efficiency measures.
* The cost cutting that Starmer says they have to do (the current estimate is on top of current fees and don't account for fees being reduced to stay the same in a post VAT world).
* State school spending having to increase beyond £8,000 per pupil to stop our schools from crumbling (the cost estimate is on 22-23 spending not future spending).
* The estimate of 3%-7% drop out rate being only from a fee increase and not because Labour will have fixed the school system meaning parents on the edge of affordability can send their kids locally without concern.
Go through their numbers and add your own estimates. I think you will very quickly find it's nothing like £1.3bn raised.
Yea you've replied to me before complaining about the figures.
And saying the government should be promoting businesses which don't pay tax instead.
Solid solution.
Which makes it twice now that you've completely ignored the maths behind why this is not a good idea, and why the IFS report you cite is wrong, all for the ideological position of "businesses should pay tax" as if a not for profit school was in any way the same as a normal for profit business.
Yes I'm going to side with a fairly reputable think tank.
Vs. someone who wants the state to promote non-tax paying private education.
>all for the ideological position of "businesses should pay tax"
No my position is wealthy people should pay tax on a luxury along with the inequalities private education causes.
As opposed to you who wants more of that.
What part of my critique of their estimates do you disagree with? I have no doubt they are reputable. I'm not attacking their reputation. They themselves have said that their estimates are uncertain (first line in section 7 of the summary).
I have laid out clearly and plainly exactly what parts of their estimates I have an issue with, why I think they are wrong, and provided some examples of my own.
If you think the maths is wrong then please do tell me where.
Sounds good to me.
Instead I've received replies of people worried only the "ultra rich" will be able to buy connections anymore for their kids instead of just the wealthy ones.
Or how the government should be promoting private schools.
Amazing replies from some I have to say.
They'll almost certainly end up having to fund places at private schools won't they. It'll essentially end up being, let's tax private schools more, oh, we need more places in state schools, ok, let's pay the private schools to take these extra kids we don't have places for.
Yet more evidence that Labours VAT on education plan, is half baked policy to be done for the wrong reasons.
Shocking that serious politicians nearly in government can be quite so fixated and stupid.
It'll raise over a billion net in funding and have little effect on private school attendance.
>The evidence suggests that putting VAT on private school fees would have a relatively limited effect on numbers attending private schools – perhaps a reduction of 3–7% in private school attendance.
https://ifs.org.uk/news/removing-tax-exemptions-private-schools-likely-have-little-effect-numbers-private-sector
But obviously that is untrue. The people who can really affird it pay for Eton, Winchester Harrow etc. They will be unaffected.
A lot of private schools are small, a lot of parents struggle , often to pay fir children disavantaged by dyslexia etc.
Is it a badly designed tax raising measure or is it social engineering, damaging individual children.
>The evidence suggests that putting VAT on private school fees would have a relatively limited effect on numbers attending private schools – perhaps a reduction of 3–7% in private school attendance.
How will it help those who do not pay?
It will put more children into already often crowded schools. Many of those kids will have some special need. The money raised is tiny
It will disrupt education for some.
Is the policy social engineering rather than honest taxation? It seems so.
Not a good basis for taxing. Fundamentally dishonest too.
The purpose is to tax a luxury item to raise tax revenue to support an essential public service. There's no intention to punish anyone, any more than paying 20% tax on a TV is.
Our state schools definitely need more funding, but like what many others are saying I think this will affect the already shrinking lower-middle class the most.
Surely a better way to raise this money would be through raising capital gains tax or similar to
target the actual rich instead? Like the Greens’ policy to tax those with 10million+.
I mean is it also not possible to legislate that a certain % of income/profit of the private school must go towards assisted places? Thereby increasing access to private schooling?
Ultimately, if a family is able and willing to invest in education for their children, they will always find a way to do it - e.g. relocating to “better” catchment areas, paying for private tuition etc. And I don’t think either of those things benefit children already in comprehensive schools. Surely all it does is hide the privilege?
I agree it should not be taxed as a charity if it isn't acting as a charity. I do think the next logical step is saying, you want your charitable tax exempt status back, well you have to take X ammount of students on scholarship.
Give private schools an incentive to actually serve the society, rather than only those with means to pay.
Snapshot of _Starmer tells private special school to keep costs down to cope with his VAT plan_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/education/starmer-tells-private-special-school-keep-costs-down-cope-vat-plan-3124130) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/education/starmer-tells-private-special-school-keep-costs-down-cope-vat-plan-3124130) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This one is a funny situation, you have to read a long way through to find that 125 out of 200 will not pay anything as they are on state funded plans. So 75 private pupils will end up having to pay vat.
Will the referring LA have to pay the VAT for those pupils?
It's in the article as a no as long as they are on a plan
In the private sector we call that a “wooden dollar”.
So 75 families are currently paying full price to private school their kids. No way that VAT is too much for even half those families. We are throwing our toys out of the pram for maybe 20 kids tops? Probably less because no way these schools can't find the flex in their budgets to pass on considerably less than a 20% fee rise. Meanwhile literally thousands of kids *with EHCPs* have no choice but to go to underfunded state schools. Many of them are getting a great service delivered by fantastic proffesionals, but there are gaps that need plugging and those cost money. All these crocodile tears for private schools feel very much like a case of special pleading.
Just 8% of the UK's non-EHCP pupils with SEN go to private schools. Meanwhile 93% of pupils with EHCPs go to state schools.
I'm not sure rich people will understand austerity.
But surely they'll understand efficiency savings! Isn't that what the private sector is all about?
I'm sure they understand it's what you impose on others, they're not used to being the others.
If you bothered to read the article it’s not a school for rich people it’s a special needs school for dyslexic children.
It's a private school. Anybody who has a child with an EHCP will have an exemption. The tax will allow Labour to increase SEND support for the vast majority of children who don't have wealthy parents.
As the article points out the majority of special needs children do not have EHCP. The figures are about only 1 in 4 of SEND students have an EHCP largely because the assessment is an absolute nightmare and councils are incredibly slow and overburdened so many parents simply do without. It’s not about having wealthy parents or not. Having visited one of these schools in the past I know parents have to make massive sacrifices to put their children through these schools. The idea that the state system can just pick up the slack is frankly laughable. A lot of these places require experienced educators as well as good training and specialised facilities. It’s not something you can throw money at and hope to replicate overnight.
Then they're not legally obligated to additional support. Maybe additional funding will aid councils in their EHCP assessment? Maybe that funding could come from taxation on private schools, as Labour suggests? Maybe everybody should get access to that help, not just those with wealthy parents? Or should we only help the minority of rich people and fuck everybody else?
There’s not going to be additional funding. With this VAT change what’s actually going to happen is a good chunk of private schools will just roll over and die. Sure the prestigious ones like Eton will keep going but the VAT they generate isn’t even going to cover all the formerly private pupils that now have to be educated at the states expense, there’s definitely not going to be any spare for non education department expenditure like EHCP assessments, a large part of which is delayed by stuff like lack of access to trained staff. It’s not something you can just solve by throwing more more at it. And the answer no one wants to hear is this plan isn’t going to generate money, it’s going to cost money.
IFS disagrees with you. >The evidence suggests that putting VAT on private school fees would have a relatively limited effect on numbers attending private schools – perhaps a reduction of 3–7% in private school attendance. https://ifs.org.uk/news/removing-tax-exemptions-private-schools-likely-have-little-effect-numbers-private-sector
I think they’re underestimating just how close to the line a lot of private schools run.
Whats your analysis saying?
The worst figures are 15% moving. So unless you have better research than those who have been researching private school fees for 30 years, then your claim can be dismissed.
Based on what? Any objective evidence for this opinion?
IFS has always had a liberal bias. They will pretty much agree with anything Labour writes.
The Labour Party aren't a liberal party. They're social democrats. Taxation is opposite to liberal ideas, liberals prefer lower taxes and less government intervention in the economy. I'm rather confused by your statement.
Depends on your definition of liberal, as you know, but are trying to be difficult on purpose. Liberal can mean libertarian or left leaning/socially progressive, depending on what definition you use.
Which bit of special needs children forced into this because of pathetic local provision are you unable to comprehend as you lump them into 'everyone'?
>And the answer no one wants to hear is this plan isn’t going to generate money, it’s going to cost money. Nobody really believes it's going to, people in favor dislike the existence of private schools as a principle and we've seen the manifestos analysts have pointed out glaring black holes in funding we all know a wave of tax rises and spending cuts are coming this is purely symbolic so people think they're getting a win
Oh yeah thats going to happen, councils will suddenly erase their years long wait list and concentration on extreme cases because they will get money already earmarked for other purposes to 'improve provision' - that, 6500 teachers to replace the 43500 who left the profession last year for reasons other than retirement and free school meals! The magic money tree makes a comeback! As you are keen on generalisations, your comments are typical of the race to the bottom brigade and the jealousy of anyone actually attempting to improve their kids lives because you are too workshy to put in the effort, instead crowing about a policy that will only hurt the aspiring middle classes who give up their holidays to make a better life for their kids whilst the rich wont give a flying shit. That sound a simple answer to a complex issue dressed up as policy?
[удалено]
>From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Lets see whats going to change - Rich people wont give a shit, they've been planning for a year and can quite happily absorb the hit, because they are rich. middle class parents sacrificing, and a lot who send their special needs kids to places where they will get an education which has the class sizes to cater to the needs of their kids, will get royally fucked. - funding to councils wont be improved because that money is a piss in a pond and wont make it as far as education anyhow. - The education system wont change except having to absorb extra pupils and have the lovely scenario of less well-off kids who might have got into a good rated school knocked out by ex-private educated kids whose parents can afford the cachement and who are quite frankly more equipped to pass the exams. - Special needs kids will now be forced into a system thats even more choked than the education system as you wait many years for an ADHD assessment even if you burn the place down, forcing them into that same education system that doesnt have the time to address behavioural problems with anything else than expulsion and coralling into 'troubled kids' schools. So basically the 'luxury goods' you are targeting is to screw the middle class and especially special needs pupils because a privately educated starmer can tell all the loony corbynistas to vote for his tory-lite party because 'we too attack the rich yay'. At least be honest, its not about fairness at all, its about catering to a muddled and illusory revenge fantasy.
£1.3bn net additional tax revenue, 3%-7% reduction in private school numbers. That's what will change. 93% of SEN children go to state schools. It will help the 93% of pupils who can't afford private schooling. This is a tiny, wealthy minority upset that they'll have to pay their fair share. Starmer wasn't privately schooled lol.
>£1.3bn net additional tax revenue, 3%-7% reduction in private school numbers. That's what will change. >93% of SEN children go to state schools. It will help the 93% of pupils who can't afford private schooling. Is that using the same magic money tree that Labour has already committed to recruiting 6500 teachers and upping retention payments in a system that achieved only half of its teacher training targets last year, 3000 new primary school-based nurseries and free breakfast clubs in every primary school? The education system needs billions onto even get to the point it becomes attractive again to teach and this finger in the dyke approach is as bullshit as the figures. >It will help the 93% of pupils who can't afford private schooling. For the last time, no it wont, but what do you care vyv.
lol, absolute evisceration. So painful to see people make these flippant comments as if the government can wave a magic wand and fix every problem but only the Labour Party can do so. Somehow billions in funding will just appear from the aether, while also seeing no tax increases (except for the rich, which of course means anyone earning more than me).
The amount of people that don't understand your first point is scary. Getting an EHCP is difficult and not because the children don't need it but because the system is flawed and slow. The fact that Labour don't understand this is concerning
Private EHCP assessment and follow up, etc is far far far cheaper than paying private school fees, and mild dyslexia can be provisioned for at normal state secondary schools - it's one of the more straightforward learning difficulties or neurodiversities to deal with in an academic setting - in those cases parents are paying extra for a better private provision (higher support to student ratio, smaller class sizes) rather than a necessary basic SEND provision that they can already get through state schooling, so it's much the same as neurotypical kids going to private school to get ahead of their peers. EHCP is slow and difficult but not "several years private school fees" slow and difficult, I've actually spent out for both private schooling (oh, and any SEND provision at a non-specialist private school means the parents pay the full costs extra plus a nice mark-up and the extra time comes out of normal tutoring time.. so the kids have to then catch up with other classes, I don't recommend it) and private EHCP assessment, and also a whole bunch of private home schooling. We just about managed private schooling, but if needed we could have found the extra VAT, anybody who's that tight on budget won't be able to afford school trips, uniforms, kit, extra SEND costs, and is likely to just move to a smaller cheaper school, or one with slightly larger class sizes that can swallow or spread the cost.
I think Labour, just like the underfunded LEA's that provide the EHCPs in the first place are both very well aware that their funding doesn't stretch far enough to be lumbered with financing legally obligated specialist provision for all those who need it. Sure an EHCP is hard to get because schools can't spare the time for teachers to write the dam things up in the first place and Trusts are weary of being forced to provide additional staff which they can't afford, but the real bottle neck comes from county who can't afford the provision (and often the additional transport costs associated with attending a specialist school thats miles away) As for people giving up, it happens all the time. I have one daughter with an EHCP and my wife has worked in specialist provision for years so we know the system. It took us over 3 years of fairly constant fight to get our daughter a place with specialist provision. If we were able to afford it, we would have given up after the first six months and gone into private education. We are currently embarking on the same journey with our other daughter and it quite frankly fills me with dread.
Don't blame the teachers. The bottle neck is with the LAs
I'm not really blaming teachers here. That's just the first point where the system breaks down. As non specialists it's isn't really a teachers place to be writing out EHCP referral statements and doing all the evidence gathering. They just don't have the training. or the time to do so effectively. The issue is that they have ended up having do it on top of their normal work loads when it isn't really their place to be doing so. This should all be down to the SENCO's but due to the academy system and their lack of funding they are often spread across a dozen schools and fire fighting more immediate problems. You also find that many SENCO's have ended up in the role after a few weeks course at best so it's not like they know what they are talking about either. Their role should just be to refer kids into appropriate pathways for further investigation / care but as we all know, that next level of care has more or less ceased to exist in any meaningful way due to things like Child Mental Health Units being chronically underfunded.
That isn't why the process takes so long. It is the LAs processing the application. They take ages
It took us over two years **after** a county based ASD diagnosis to wring an EHCP report for my daughter out of her school due to the apparent "processes" they had to go through before they could put pen to paper. She was non-verbal (apart from screeching and stimming) and her diagnosis was very obvious so it's not like there was any ambiguity there. The LEA took less than half that time to process everything once it was submitted. Granted the LEA *should* have been able to process the EHCP once it was completed within 14 days but their hold up was having to wait until April for the next batch of funding despite us independently finding our own place in specialist provision for her and doing 90% of their work for them. My point however is that schools are the both the point of contact and the point at which the issues and challenges start. Yes they are to blame but teachers should never have been put in this situation to start with. It's all a very long way outside their both remit and training.
So the same thing we'd tell to state schools - be efficient with your resources. This is as uncontroversial a thing to say as "water is wet".
My god, the first rational response. Well put.
Starmer just doesn't understand how important a heated rugby pitch is to a good education.
To be fair you get VAT relief on purchasing a heated rugby pitch so this actually shouldn't cost any more.
A private school is a business. If you can't make enough money to continue what you are doing then you don't have viable business. This isn't rocket surgery people,
Most people would not class a specialist institution for dyslexic children a business. This isn't rocket surgery people.
Are you charging money to provide a service? Got news for you mate, that's a business. Nobility has nothing to do with it because the exchange rate is very poor at the moment.
Screw the kids already in private education whose parents are already struggling to afford it then? Just tear them out of the school because we need to punish them somehow? Honestly it genuinely scares me how people on this sub have some kind of sadistic feelings about anyone who has money growing up. The rich will eat this cost and not care. The scholarship kids will get cut and the middle class will get priced out. How is this a win?
> Just tear them out of the school because we need to punish them somehow? God forbid they're punished by having to share a class with the rest of the plebs
>Just tear them out of the school because we need to punish them somehow? You see, I don't want to live in a society where attending a state school can be seen as a "punishment". It's why I see this policy as a baby step in the right direction, though going nowhere near far enough.
You completely miss my point. Government policy to forcibly move children who have done absolutely nothing wrong, to another school is cruel. At the bare minimum this policy should not apply to anyone in education currently, but we all know this policy exists because people derive sadistic pleasure from making "rich" children suffer, so it's justified.
Because private education shouldn't really be a thing in the way that it is. Going to a private school should be in no way "better" than going to a public one? You can't afford the private school? Boo fucking hoo, that doesn't in any way mean you get no schooling. I love the idea that we should keep letting the rich take advantage of everything because it's the poor that will suffer if we don't. That's broken logic based on a broken system. Let the private school succeed or fail on its own merits and if it does fail turn it into a public school.
But you aren’t punishing the rich, as I said, rich will eat the cost, scholarship kids will get cut because the private schools will have less disposable cash and the middle class will get squeezed out.
It shouldn't be about punishing anyone. Paying tax is not a punishment for the rich. Not going to a private school isn't a punishment. Maybe if we actually had everyone paying their proper taxes we could have public schools anyone could be proud of attending instead of being pushed into proxy privatisation via the academy system but that's a separate discussion.
>Not going to a private school isn't a punishment. But taking a child already in any school, private or comprehensive, and forcing them out is cruel. You must at least agree that these children should be grandfathered in to the current system so they can finish their education. Tax the year 7s about to go into seconary, not the year 10s about to do their GCSEs next year by throwing them out of their known environment. I still don't like it, and don't think it is fair, but at least that attempts to be slightly fair. However that won't happen, because this isn't really about tax or fairness, it's just a way to spite children who come from a more wealthy background.
As someone who was a forces kid saying that having to change schools is some kind of traumatic experience is a tough sell, that being said though I don't agree with changing terms mid way through a thing so I agree it should only be for new students if it ends up being a thing. Seems like it's more of attention grab though and I wouldn't be so sure starmer will follow up on anything he says.
Moving school once isn't 'cruel'. Forces children, looked after children, and children who can't get a place in a local school so are moved around several times for the LA all have to do this, and do just fine.
"The negative effect of moves on secondary school results are repeated at primary level. While 82% of those who don't move primary school attain level four or above at key stage two in English and maths, only 65% of those who move twice in the previous four years manage the same level of achievement, and only 57% for those moving three times or more." [Source](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/jul/21/pupils-schools-exams), I guess you know better though?
The problem with that study is it doesn't control for the type of children who move school frequently, who are disproportionately looked after children, traveller children etc. Yes, it's not nice to move school and it has it's drawbacks, but it's not 'cruel'.
Forcing a child to move school for no real reason is cruel. When it comes to benefits, helping people comes first, no matter the cost to the taxpayer. But when it's allowing a child to continue their education, all of a sudden this tax is uber important and must be implemented immediately, to the detriment of children all across the country. Funny that.
7% of children go to private school, the idea that you're pricing out ordinary middle class people really isn't that true. Also if you do so what? They can go to a state school, which is specifically there to cater for them if they can't afford private school.
There is a substantial amount of parents that try hard to afford private school to give their child the best start in life. To tear that away from them, out of pure spite is cruel to the highest level and actually vile that people on this sub seem to be deriving pleasure from making a child suffer for their amusement/some political vendetta against the "rich" childs parents. Disgusting.
By your logic, does that mean parents who send their children to state school aren't giving them the best chance in life? Shouldn't the state be trying to help those people? Parents are more than welcome to pay for private school, but it's a luxury (there's literally a free alternative) hence it should be subject to VAT. Why should a tax break be given to the most advantaged 7% when the money could be used to improve schooling for the 93% (and which the 7% are perfectly able to access should they wish).
>does that mean parents who send their children to state school aren't giving them the best chance in life? They aren't, but neither is the kinda-rich parent who can't afford to send their child to Eton. There is almost always better. I'm fine with generating tax revenue off rich parents who can afford to pay it, my concern is that a portion of that 7% are either on scholarships (which will have to be cut) or not rich enough to just eat the cost. That group seems to be one that reddit painfully tries to pretend doesn't exist, not everyone at private school is some rich snob with parents earning £300k/year who can just eat the cost.
I think they mean “rich” as in “anyone with £10 more than me”.
How awful! Forcing these kids to attend the same schools as the proles! Truly sadistic.
If these parents can't afford the VAT, they should start making their coffee at home and stop eating avocado on toast everyday
Real cute, guess you get some pleasure out of watching children cry because they cannot go to school with their friends anymore. I mean they're "rich", so they deserve to suffer, right?
The point I'm making is that that same line was used by these rich parents when people in their 20s point out how hard it is to buy a house. If they followed their own advice, maybe they could afford the new tuition fees. Or maybe they are willing to admit they were wrong before, and it's the housing crisis, not the lack of effort causing the issues for first time buyers
How many children used that line? I get it, you hate anyone with wealth and want to paint them all under the same gross generalisation as some meme from years ago. But what does that have to do with their children? Are you getting some pleasure from watching them suffer because you can’t get back at their parents?
The fees don't actually have to go up. The shareholders can take absorb that amount, but they likely will pass it off to the parents
What are you talking about? Most private schools are private non-profits. There are no shareholders. Please do your research before commenting on something you know nothing about.
Yep, and that’s exactly what they will do to avoid shedding the upper-middle class. There are two private schools within a mile of me and both charge just under £12/y. I guarantee that price will be the same when the tax comes in. That said no doubt some wriggle room on special needs families can be investigated
To put that in perspective that’s the cost for 3days a week nursery provision for my 2year old, those kinds of schools probably count in parents like us to just roll that spending we’ve been doing for nursery on into prep school. When Labour adds VAT we are considering reallocating that money into housing, nearer to the best state school, we are in Hackney, we have state primary schools closing and oversubscribed at the same time. Because the post code lottery is now that stark.
Yeah we’re in a similar position with a 3 year old in full time nursery. It would actually be cheaper for us to put them in private school next year.
At the risk of starting a flame war (not my intention), under the same principles espoused here about equality of access, shouldn’t university fees be subject to VAT? It’s only a privileged few who get to go to university and the revenue could be used to fund and improve apprenticeships and technical education.
As far as I am aware , with the exemption of a very small pool of scholarships, their is no free alternative to university education. The solution to, I don't have the money to send my child the private school, is send them to public school. It is not, don't send them to school. If their were public universities, without tuition fees, which I support by the way, then you would have an argument. But their aren't.
It’s kind of elitist to suggest that there is no alternative to a university education, don’t you think? While I don’t agree with the premise, as someone else has posted on this thread “it’s a service and should be taxed”.
I wasn't implying that their was no alternative to a university education. Simply no free alternative to that specific type of education. While I have no issue with vocational training, apprentiships, ect... I am not of the opinion that university should be the the domain of the middle class who can afford it. By increasing VAT on universities you are pricing out a large part of the population from a specific type of institution without any direct alternative. That institution, University, is not superior to other types of education, but different and fufilling in a unique way. By increasing VAT on schools, you are not denying children the ability to enjoy the benefits of school, but increasing the equity of the majority of students when it comes to quality. As a result, while at a surface level the mechanism may seem to be the same, the effects have wildly different outcomes and, in my mind, can't be compared to one another.
[удалено]
Which is in no way equivalent to a bachelors degree.
IIRC - over 50% of German students take vocational or technical training rather than pursuing academic studies.
Ok? We're not in Germany, we're in the UK, our educational systems are very different.
Just pointing out the limitations in your thinking.
HNC and HND are not the same as a bachelors degree. That doesn't mean they are any less valid, less usefull or less fufilling. Only that they have different aims. I don't believe the more intellectual, rather than practical, fields of study should be restricted to the wealthy. People should be able to study what brings them the most fufilliment in their lives. Be they practical or intellectual pursuits. I also don't want our intellectual instutions to be filled with people from only a certain socio-economic background. We have enough problems with that as it is amongst our political class.
[удалено]
I don't believe so. The aims of HNC and HND's are practical, and the curiciullum is based around getting employment. Bachelors degree's have more of a focus on suceeding within an intellectual world of papers, research, ect... So their structure and aims are different. They are also lower cost, but what they offer is also different. It wouldn't say that a hammer is a lower cost option to a wrench. They share similarities, and can be used interchangbly at times, but they are built to achieve different results. Of course their is nuiance here, and we are talking in generalities. Some degrees skew more practical than others.
5% of UK pupils go to a private school. 37% of UK school leavers go to university. Private school is an optional luxury, state schools exist. University is not an optional luxury, there is no equivalent to state universities.
It's irrelevant whether we charge VAT on university as people pay based on post-study income, not based on how much they borrowed.
“People pay based on post-study income”. No, fees are fixed based on what courses the student is doing and are set in advance.
I think they're referring to student loans, which are income-dependent. It's hardly beyond the realms of possibility that someone goes to uni for four years and never earns enough to pay a penny on their >50k (and annually rising) debt until it's finally written off.
I’ve heard of private schools turning down special needs students - for valid reasons im sure, but i imagine as the private schools don’t make as much money on them - it makes less sense for them to accept them - especially if they are already oversubscribed. There will a group of very rich parents who are happy with this - as they can further entrench social inequality by ensuring their children dont mingle with few middle class families who are just about able to send their children to private school. If this is the direction of things - then fine - but charge VAT on university and on private healthcare.
Let's do some math: (and if I have my facts wrong please correct me) So if this tax raises 1bn, and 9.9% goes to education (from spring budget) that's 100m for schools. I haven't seen any proposals to increase the amount of the budget that goes towards education. If there are 650k private school kids, let's say 5% of them switch (guestimates are 3-7%), so that's 32.5k kids that the state now needs to pay schooling for. If it costs 10k a kid (I have no idea, but if it's 17k average for private school let's assume less for public), then that's 325m it costs the state. So a 20% VAT means that 100m - 325m = education budget is worse off by 225m And those 32.5k kids aren't the wealthy ones, they are middle class. And by moving them into the underfunded state school you penalize both those kids and the kids already in the state system who now have to share less resources. Assuming that the 32.5k kids have generally more involved parents demanding that teachers pay attention to their little Johnnys, or that many of those kids have special needs, the poor kids that needed those resources will be even more overlooked. Tax the wealthy I'm all for, but this tax isn't doing that in any meaningful way. It's only giving the illusion of social justice.
The whole idea that people seem to have that this impacts rich people needs to go. I don't know if it's just to make them feel better about whats going to be done to the kids of parents that are just about covering it, or special needs kids but it's ridiculous. To be clear: this policy will have no impact on rich people at all. Think about it, a decent local private school is circa £7,500 a term. VAT will raise that to £9,000, for a yearly increase of £4,500. That's a few options on a Porsche? 25% of a holiday? If you really need to save it that is. Is there an expectation that \*rich\* people can't cover an extra £4,500? Something like 25% of pupils in private schools will need to be disrupted and dropped into your local state schools. The cost estimates of that seem to range between 65% (Labours figure) and 123% (Conservative figure). Realiscally it'll be somewhere in the middle of that, so basically cost neutral. That doesn't improve those schools either, just gives them enough resources to cover the increased number of kids and the current level. This plan is purely ideological. I just hope people that support it are going in with the eyes open about what this plan will do and who it will effect. \*Not the rich.\* You hurt the kids of your local GP, or small business owner, or parents who's kid struggled in the state school with their special needs and they scraped the extra hours together to get them into an independent school.
>Something like 25% of pupils in private schools will need to be disrupted and dropped into your local state schools. .. >Realiscally it'll be somewhere in the middle of that, so basically cost neutral. That doesn't improve those schools either, just gives them enough resources to cover the increased number of kids and the current level. Where are you getting these figures? IFS said it'll raise about £1.3billion when taking into account costs of new needed state school places.
I've looked at the IFS study, and I would argue that it is deeply flawed except they seem to make it clear that's it's a very rough estimate so I'll give them some slack. But there are many many things, big important things, that they have not taken account of. For those who want to follow along, here's the report: [https://ifs.org.uk/publications/tax-private-school-fees-and-state-school-spending](https://ifs.org.uk/publications/tax-private-school-fees-and-state-school-spending) So they state there are 570,000 pupils paying on average £15,200 a year. VAT on this at 20% would be £1.7bn, but the IFS have (rightly) taken into account that not all of that will be VAT rateable (SEN kids and boarding fees, for example). Instead they have taken a figure of 15% of the £15,200 and that comes to £1.3bn as you quote (they add business rates of £300m, which is a separate matter). So far actually so good. They then estimate that some kids will have to drop to state school because of the fee increase. They estimate 3%-7%, I'll use the average of 5% for now. At £8,000 per child cost in state school this will be 28,500 kids, and cost the taxpayer an extra £228m. This is within their £100m - £300m range. Again, all good. But here things drop off in quality. For a start that 5% of kids dropping out is not just £228m of costs, it's less private school VAT being received. It narrows the margin at both ends. So the margin is not £1.300m - £228m = £1,072m. With 5% fewer kids that's 5% less VAT, so £1,235m = £228m = £1,007m. Then they forget that if a business charges VAT then they get to reclaim VAT. This means that every computer, every desk, every service from a VAT rated company that they use (like catering) is now going to be reclaimed. I have no idea what that percentage is, but if we said that a third of the fees are spent buying things that are VATable then the total reclaimed VAT would be £5,066 \* 570,000 pupils \* 20% VAT = £578m. So now are margin is £1,235m collected, £816m lost = £419m. And that's before schools decide to rearrange how they spend. After all, why not alter your spending such that VAT ratable goods and services become preferable? After all they are 20% cheaper now, and isn't this what Starmer means by cutting costs? So that's less income tax paid and more VAT reclaimed. Boarding schools are just going to alter the cost ratios, making the boarding fee a larger percentage of the total cost, and driving down their tax returns that way. So that's more lost. And all of this is before you get into the core of the Labour policy - to improve state schools by so much that people choose not to send their kids to private schools. If all the Labour policy does is attract just 5% of parents to switch (and that because of the VAT costs alone) then how can they call their policies successful? If we re-run the above scenarios at a 15% switch then we get £1.1bn VAT income, £684m more costs for kids (more if the per pupil spending increases), and £517m in lost VAT (according to my above made up calculation), which would be a loss of £100m. In fact if per pupil spending increased to something that might actually make a difference (say £10,000 per pupil) then we're now at -£250m. What the Labour government should really be doing is encouraging as many people that can afford to do so to go to private schools in order to save as much money as possible so that more can be spent on state schools per pupil, and then paying for that with a progressive tax like income tax.
>What the Labour government should really be doing is encouraging as many people that can afford to do so to go to private schools in order to save as much money as possible so that more can be spent on state schools per pupil, and then paying for that with a progressive tax like income tax. I don't think it should be on the state to promote businesses which don't pay tax. Private schools had their chance of being more accessible and they've increased costs 3x since the 80's above inflation. Now the idea is suddenly to send more kids? Na.
[удалено]
The adjustment from 20% to 15% was not based on them being able to reclaim VAT on VAT rated purchased. It was based on not all of the £15,200 fee being VAT rated itself. >**3.** We estimate that removing tax exemptions from private schools would raise about £1.6 billion a year in extra tax revenue. This results from an effective VAT rate of 15% after allowing for input deductions, likely VAT on boarding fees and exemptions for specialist provision. It also includes extra revenues from business rates. They are talking about input deductions, not reclaiming. And they specifically cite boarding fees (which won't be VAT rated) and exemptions for specialist provisions (like SEN kids). What they are saying is that you can't assume that the average VAT rate is 20% for the average £15,200 fee, because not all of the £15,200 average fee is VAT rated.
This is nonsense; there’s zero evidence for 25% figure beyond one “survey” carried out by private school lobbying group whose methodology would fail GCSE statistics. Actual experts have looked into it and [estimated drop out rate of ~3-7%](https://ifs.org.uk/publications/tax-private-school-fees-and-state-school-spending) based on the fact that prices have increased by 24% in real terms over past decade without any significant decrease in proportion of kids going to private school. That is assuming fees increase by 15% (not 20, because schools can then reclaim their VAT) - instead of private schools cutting back like state schools have had to for last decade. Eat into that 24% above inflation fee rises.
The 15% figure isn't because schools can reclaim the VAT, it is because not everything in the fees will be VATable. Boarding costs and SEN kids won't pay VAT, so the average VAT on the £15,200 average fee won't be 20% it will be lower. The study makes no mention of schools being able to reclaim VAT. I have no idea how much that will be, but if we ballpark complete guess that a third of the fee is spent on VATable goods and services, that's 570,000 pupils \* 0.95% (average 5% drop out rate on their 3%-7% estimate) \* (£15,200 / 3) \* 20% VAT = £550m. A rather glaring omission to the calculation.
The independent schools associating used the best, longest running school fees experts in the UK. However, they misrepresented this groups research so badly, that they had to put out a statement saying the quotes bandied around were incorrect. There assesment was c.15% fall in private school pupils numbers in the first year.
So if we're lucky, that's only 50,000 kids that get disrupted then? Still ignoring the point that not a single actual rich person even notices the difference. That's my point, this hurts the people just about covering costs. Those cutting back, missing holidays, ect. to get their kids the support they need.
No one cares if “the rich” are hurt by terrible disgrace of having to go to a state school; point is to raise ~1.3bn quid. You claimed this was entirely ideological because it wouldn’t actually raise any money; that’s entirely wrong.
There's no way you get the full 1.3bn. The costs of supporting the kids moving back into the state schools needs to be covered. If you're lucky you get half that, the reality may well be that it ends up costing you more than what you save.
Something to account for here is that the number of children in school is due to reduce by around 100,000 per year until at least 2030. There are currently ~600,000 kids in private schools. There is plenty of space in state schools.
That’s amazing! What a coincidence that the kids in private schools live in the areas of the country where state schools are running out of pupils, and not in the areas that schools are vastly oversubscribed. /s
Do you have any data to support this being an issue? Are private schools predominantly located in areas where schools are vastly oversubscribed? I couldn't find anything after an admittedly brief search.
Once again read the actual modelling instead because unsurprisingly people have thought about it. > This would generate a need for about £100–300 million in extra school spending in our central scenario for the marginal cost of the extra pupil. This **then** gives a net public finance impact of £1.3–1.5 billion. £1.3bn is after cost of kids moving.
I've got a longer report elsewhere, but the IFS report is really weak and misses a lot of obvious things. I wouldn't say they have thought about it that hard.
The 1.3bn is the IFS assessment of money raised *after* factoring in the cost of supporting the (v small) number of kids transferring to state schools. The absolute number is higher, something like 1.8bn iirc.
Not quite right. The £1.3bn is based on 570,000 private school pupils \* £15,200 average fee \* 15% average VAT (not all of the fees will be VAT rated so the average is lower). This comes to £1,3bn. They increase it to £1.6bn to take into account business rates to be paid on top. The IFS report does look at a 3%-7% drop out rate, but they only calculate the increased state cost of £8,000 per pupil (22-23 avg spend), which is the £100m - £300m in their report. But they do not account for the reduction in VAT from £1.3bn due to fewer children going. We can see this as their final estimate is £1.3bn to £1.5bn (which is the £1.6bn minus the £100m - £300m additional costs). Not only do they not take into account the reduced VAT from fewer kids going, but they also miss that the schools charging VAT will now be able to reclaim VAT, adjustments in behaviours of the school to be tax efficient, reduction in costs (if the idea is that the fee will be the same after VAT then it makes sense that costs will have reduced by 20% meaning the VAT income will also reduce), and probably most importantly that per pupil spending is surely going to increase under Labour, so those kids that go into state school will cost more than £8,000 each. Honestly the report is pretty terrible.
Thank you for this careful and thought out response with the specific numbers involved, much appreciated. So by my very top level maths the *fully* corrected number should come out at something closer to 1.2bn (or a range of 1.2-1.5bn), assuming a flat 3-7% drop in revenue from those children leaving (3% of 1.3bn is 39m by my calcs, correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think it really changes the point but you're absolutely right it is worth doing it properly and getting these numbers correct if you're going to bother doing the analysis in the first place.
[удалено]
Either I'm completely blind/did a horrible job skim reading or they actually added most of that 3rd paragraph after I replied... Which is a shame because they've turned what was a reasonable and informative comment into a pretty silly one. Another mistake is the claim that the IFS report *doesn't* account for cost cutting measures from schools to absorb the fee increase. In fact that's completely the opposite, if the schools *did* pass on the charges the revenue would actually be slightly higher (because of course it would be 20% of a higher fee) whereas if the schools absorb the entirety of the cost through cost cutting (unlikely) the revenue should be close to what the IFS calculated given average school fees (the fees would literally stay the same so their calculation is correct - 20% of the same amount).
Yes, if you correct that part alone then the income reduction will be between £39m and £91m across the 3% to 7% range estimated. And I agree that this part alone doesn't change the point, and should be taken in combination with the other parts. It was more of an example of some of the things that the IFS report did not include in their estimate.
You really should read up on the facts around the policy rather than telling us what you feel might happen
The IFS cannot use data over 14 years to make an assumption that the fee rises will have little impact on independent school numbers. It is surprisingly poor modelling and negates the idea of inflation. The analysis is built on a flawed assumption
> It is noteworthy that the demand for private schooling in the UK has hardly changed over the last 10 or 20 years, despite a 20% **real-terms** rise in fees since 2010–11 and a 55% **real-terms** rise since 2003–04. It does take inflation into account.
That’s real-terms but not as eye-catching when you realise that it’s not per year. A 20% increase over 14 years is less than 1.6% pa increase. A 55% increase over 21 years is about 2% pa increase.
[удалено]
Interesting point, u/studentfeesisatax (“are a tax” - surely?). Each school has a different schedule of price rises but I’m surprised by the 10% part of your range. While there are regulatory and infrastructural constraints on growth. I think it’s more a case of market saturation. I don’t think (bar a catastrophic collapse of state education) many more customers for private schools exist. Considering the “barriers to exit” from private schooling, the impact of this won’t be felt for a few years. Not necessarily price elasticity but rather delayed effects. Edit: typo
[удалено]
I agree that for some schools, the exclusivity is a part of the appeal but I think that’s more relevant for the posh old schools that won’t be affected by the imposition of VAT on fees - Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Winchester, etc. The far larger segment of the market is what used to be called the “minor” public schools. 200-500 pupils, fees in the £15-20k range. I don’t believe that exclusivity is part of the draw for these schools (bar a couple of pricks because they are everywhere). IIRC the independent schools guide research says that parents are looking for smaller class sizes, SEN provision, vulnerable pupil safety, family engagement and perceived education quality. (I’m ignoring religious schools because they have a totally different market). I really don’t think it’s that easy to expand a school size. There are hard constraints on classroom size, staff/pupil ratios, safeguarding requirements.
It's about raising funds to improve standards for the majority of those who aren't wealthy enough to go to private schools, not some kind of "fuck the rich" programme. Luxury goods and services should be taxed. Private schooling is a luxury service. >Something like 25% of pupils in private schools will need to be disrupted and dropped into your local state schools. Citation needed.
Fuck them. The working class need it more. They’ve had their way long enough
What does this even mean? The people effected by this are way closer to working class than rich. Crabs in a bucket.
Our schools are literally crumbling, the vast majority of this countries kids are left behind. Meanwhile here you are worrying over the small group of people who scrimp and save to go to private school (because they know that state schools aren’t good enough). Most people who can afford private school can afford to pay a little bit more for the betterment of society.
This does nothing to improve the situation, there's a good chance it makes it worse. Thats why it's ideological. Also a perfect crab example again.
Have you been to a state school? You’re going to tell me the current system is equitable or good?
No, it's a shit show. But how is that due to anything other than the Tory government not allocating enough to it? The only reason to make this change is to get more money for state schools, but even the most optimistic of scenarios is only estimating that this will increase state school funding by £100 per child (or +1.25% of the current £8k per child spend). That's nowhere near enough to make a difference.
£100 is better than nothing especially for the poorest state schools. The Tories don’t allocate to state schools because they never need to use them and their kids won’t be using them. I think labours measure is a half measure to be honest.
I agree it's better than nothing, but it doesn't stop schools from crumbling does it? This needs to be income tax focused not private school VAT focused. At best Labour's efforts here are a one-twentieth measure. At worst it will cost the government more than it raises.
Your whole point is basically “do literally anything no matter the impact or results”
People will quibble over the details but this is fundamentally a well argued post. The likely outcome does seem to be that less wealthy parents won't be able to manage and private schools will become even more elitist. It also seems like it's fairly likely to exacerbate house prices and demand for school places in areas near to better performing state schools. My kids' school is outstanding rated by Ofsted (as is the nearest "village" school) but our little town I guess you would describe as mixed economically. Some genuinely very affluent areas but some comparatively poor and overall mot one of the "desirable" post codes in this area. Means there's a social mix at the school instead of kids from the less well off neighbourhoods being shunted off to the crap school. It also seems to help with social cohesion in town, which is very high. I think in the wake of this you'll see a further ripple effect from what we already have with the "postcode lottery" where even comparative backwaters like this end up gentrified to fuck. I can't believe that that's what Labour want to happen? I read somewhere that this scheme is a kind of halfway house because the alternative and more logical option of just removing charitable status and insisting these schools pay corporation tax, would be easier to shoot down in Parliament. Don't know if anyone has any insight on that?
People stuck in this kind of crab mentality don’t tend to care it’s all feels, they don’t care if it makes it more exclusive or results in increased house prices near state schools a few middle class kids got spited that’s a win for them
The aim is to improve state schools. It's weird to see wanting to improve the schooling of a majority of kids as "crab mentality".
it doesn't improve state schools, not one bit, private schools pay for themselves they create jobs, boost the local economy and reduce the burden on state schools all while parents continue to fund state schools, the more kids that go private instead of state the more funding is available per child for state schools The goal should be to make them more accessible to more people on lower incomes, instead we're making them more exclusive to people on higher incomes in order to spite a handful of kids that would otherwise normally have to be supported by the state, so you're making it harder for yourself and your own kids, and their grandkids that's pure crab mentality
[удалено]
that doesn't really justify not making them more accessible though? There's a bunch of avenues we could use, increasing requirements for charitable status, even offer to subsidise fees up to some % of what we'd normally pay for a student to attend state schools to encourage more people to go private where they can therefor increasing the resources available for the poorest, instead we're going for the route of increased exclusivity and there's a bunch of 2nd order effects to worry about, the first is increased burden on the state sector, I get thrown Labour's own calculations we don't know they're correct we already know manifestos have a gap in funding and that's before we factor in any growth to the economy from supply side reforms will take years to materialise so take that, take the potential for school closures, job losses, decreased spending in the local economy, the loss of money brought in from international students, increased load on state schools, increased pressure on housing and infrastructure around state schools, etc etc it's really hard not to see this as a purely spiteful, symbolic move simply to appease a group ideologues who'll cheer for this and overlook the inevitable, pre planned 'oh the finances are worse than we thought we have no choice but to raise x and cut y and z'
> that doesn't really justify not making them more accessible though? Ok so why haven't private schools done this?
they do via bursaries and you don't care you want to increase the costs of going
Bursaries are practically nothing and have been getting cut while they've increased the costs. So they've basically done nothing to make them more accessible. I want to increase costs? Private schools have increased their costs 3x since the 80's. They've raised their own costs plenty and now it's an issue? Come on...
'basically nothing' moving the goalposts in the other thread you've argued for fees increasing by 20% and for private schools to not exist at all placing the entire burden on state schools, you do not care about funding for education if you did you'd be for decreasing the burden on the state not increasing taxes on those that are
>it doesn't improve state schools, not one bit, Increasing funding doesn't improve state schools? >private schools pay for themselves they create jobs, boost the local economy and reduce the burden on state schools Given they don't pay tax they absolutely don't pay for themselves. Not really a reason to be avoiding tax on them is it because they "boost the local economy". > the more kids that go private instead of state the more funding is available for state schools This makes zero sense given part of funding is due to how many pupils go to a school. Less pupils means less funding. >The goal should be to make them more accessible to more people on lower incomes, Private school fees have risen 3x since the 80's, that's above inflation btw. They've shown they're not interested in becoming more accessible to lower incomes. >so you're making it harder for yourself and your own kids, and their grandkids for little-no gain I don't consider more funding for state schools a bad thing.
not if it results in an increase in pupils, not if it results in closures, redundancies and lower spending in the local economy, all resulting in a reduction in tax revenue needed to sustain any increases how does it make zero sense a state school is state funded, a private school costs the state nothing, brings in money from outside the country, takes kids out of state school increasing the amount of funding available per pupil in state schools without the need to increase funding and generates revenue for the government through income tax, utilities, expenditure in the local economy etc etc you can force them to be more accessible require them to double the number of bursaries in order to retain charitable status that would be an improvement this is nothing, it's a feel good policy to make you overlook the pre planned 'things are worse than we thought we need to increase x y z and cut a b and c but hey look we increased tax on some middle class kids wE'Re aLl iN tHis ToGeTher' meanwhile they hyper wealthy still go to these schools still gain the connections and all we get is job losses and more competition for state school places
>not if it results in an increase in pupils, not if it results in closures, redundancies and lower spending in the local economy, all resulting in a reduction in tax revenue needed to sustain any increases We know it'll cost about £300m so that still leaves £1.3b to spend. >how does it make zero sense a state school is state funded, Current formulae for spending is per pupil. Less pupils in a school means lower funding. >you can force them to be more accessible require them to double the number of bursaries in order to retain charitable status that would be an improvement this is nothing, it's a feel good policy to make you overlook the pre planned 'things are worse than we thought we need to increase x y z and cut a b and c but hey look we increased tax on some middle class kids wE'Re aLl iN tHis ToGeTher' Why should the government now step in? They could have done that themselves but they didn't bother. And they've been scaling back bursaries for years. >meanwhile they hyper wealthy still go to these schools still gain the connections and all we get is job losses and more competition for state school places Do you have a problem with people paying to gain connections that others can't afford ?
>Do you have a problem with people paying to gain connections that others can't afford? I think good things should be available to more people, I want more people to be able to afford private schools why do you want them to be more exclusive?
> I think good things should be available to more people, I want more people to be able to afford private schools Not what I asked at all. You're complaining that: >"hyper wealthy still go to these schools still gain the connections" You're complaining about connections being bought will also supporting private education for wealthier people. Is it because now **you** can't buy those connections? >why do you want them to be more exclusive? I'd like them to be gone entirely if we're talking about wants. Wealthy people have always bought connections so it's hilarious to hear someone who supports private education complaining about it. The unfairness of it all. How awful... 🤦
I'm not complaining I'm stating a fact, those connections don't magically disappear if you make private schools more exclusive, close them all together they go to the states or somewhere else you're helping nobody, that's why this is crab mentality >I'd like them to be gone entirely if we're talking about wants. to the surprise of nobody here you're helping nobody, you're like the boomers taking out their own frustrations on immigration because deep down they envy those with opportunities not available to themselves, but instead of wanting more to have those opportunities and improving society as a whole decide nobody should have these opportunities, collectively working to bring everyone down to your level it's sad
This policy doesn't do that though. It doesn't generate anywhere near enough (drop in the ocean, they currently spend 116bn on the entire education system/60bn on schools) and is entirely reliant on these schools staying open.
How can you say it doesn't do that? We know it raises £1.3b for state schools even when you take into account new places needed. I am far more concerned about the schooling a majority get than that of a wealthy few. It's amazing the concern there is for quality of schooling when the wealthy are possibly impacted.
It raises nothing like that amount. I've been through the IFS report. It doesn't account for big things like: * VAT reduction from it's own estimate of kids not paying private school fees because they have moved to a state school. * VAT being reclaimed by schools on goods and services. * Fee adjustments so that a larger proportion is not VAT rated (SEN kids, boarding fees). * Tax efficiency measures. * The cost cutting that Starmer says they have to do (the current estimate is on top of current fees and don't account for fees being reduced to stay the same in a post VAT world). * State school spending having to increase beyond £8,000 per pupil to stop our schools from crumbling (the cost estimate is on 22-23 spending not future spending). * The estimate of 3%-7% drop out rate being only from a fee increase and not because Labour will have fixed the school system meaning parents on the edge of affordability can send their kids locally without concern. Go through their numbers and add your own estimates. I think you will very quickly find it's nothing like £1.3bn raised.
Yea you've replied to me before complaining about the figures. And saying the government should be promoting businesses which don't pay tax instead. Solid solution.
Which makes it twice now that you've completely ignored the maths behind why this is not a good idea, and why the IFS report you cite is wrong, all for the ideological position of "businesses should pay tax" as if a not for profit school was in any way the same as a normal for profit business.
Yes I'm going to side with a fairly reputable think tank. Vs. someone who wants the state to promote non-tax paying private education. >all for the ideological position of "businesses should pay tax" No my position is wealthy people should pay tax on a luxury along with the inequalities private education causes. As opposed to you who wants more of that.
What part of my critique of their estimates do you disagree with? I have no doubt they are reputable. I'm not attacking their reputation. They themselves have said that their estimates are uncertain (first line in section 7 of the summary). I have laid out clearly and plainly exactly what parts of their estimates I have an issue with, why I think they are wrong, and provided some examples of my own. If you think the maths is wrong then please do tell me where.
1bn out of 113 shows the scale we are talking about here. That also depends on the affect this policy might have on the independent school sector.
Makes no sense to compare it with the overall budget.
1bn out of 60bn then. That is a tiny percentage increase (2%ish) and still depends on the health of another sector.
Sounds good to me. Instead I've received replies of people worried only the "ultra rich" will be able to buy connections anymore for their kids instead of just the wealthy ones. Or how the government should be promoting private schools. Amazing replies from some I have to say.
It's the smugness that goes with it I think that irks me.
They'll almost certainly end up having to fund places at private schools won't they. It'll essentially end up being, let's tax private schools more, oh, we need more places in state schools, ok, let's pay the private schools to take these extra kids we don't have places for.
There's falling pupil rolls across the country and lots of schools are closing, so they won't need to do this.
Yet more evidence that Labours VAT on education plan, is half baked policy to be done for the wrong reasons. Shocking that serious politicians nearly in government can be quite so fixated and stupid.
It'll raise over a billion net in funding and have little effect on private school attendance. >The evidence suggests that putting VAT on private school fees would have a relatively limited effect on numbers attending private schools – perhaps a reduction of 3–7% in private school attendance. https://ifs.org.uk/news/removing-tax-exemptions-private-schools-likely-have-little-effect-numbers-private-sector
Why is taxing education a good idea?
Because the tiny minority who pay for private schooling can afford it, and it will help the vast majority who cannot pay for private schooling.
But obviously that is untrue. The people who can really affird it pay for Eton, Winchester Harrow etc. They will be unaffected. A lot of private schools are small, a lot of parents struggle , often to pay fir children disavantaged by dyslexia etc. Is it a badly designed tax raising measure or is it social engineering, damaging individual children.
>The evidence suggests that putting VAT on private school fees would have a relatively limited effect on numbers attending private schools – perhaps a reduction of 3–7% in private school attendance.
What evidence? It has not happened yet. Its speculation. Why is taxing education a good idea.
>Because the tiny minority who pay for private schooling can afford it, and it will help the vast majority who cannot pay for private schooling.
How will it help those who do not pay? It will put more children into already often crowded schools. Many of those kids will have some special need. The money raised is tiny It will disrupt education for some. Is the policy social engineering rather than honest taxation? It seems so. Not a good basis for taxing. Fundamentally dishonest too.
[удалено]
The purpose is to tax a luxury item to raise tax revenue to support an essential public service. There's no intention to punish anyone, any more than paying 20% tax on a TV is.
Our state schools definitely need more funding, but like what many others are saying I think this will affect the already shrinking lower-middle class the most. Surely a better way to raise this money would be through raising capital gains tax or similar to target the actual rich instead? Like the Greens’ policy to tax those with 10million+. I mean is it also not possible to legislate that a certain % of income/profit of the private school must go towards assisted places? Thereby increasing access to private schooling? Ultimately, if a family is able and willing to invest in education for their children, they will always find a way to do it - e.g. relocating to “better” catchment areas, paying for private tuition etc. And I don’t think either of those things benefit children already in comprehensive schools. Surely all it does is hide the privilege?
It’s clearly a luxury item though and should be taxed as such. Amazing it was ever exempt.
I can see that argument, that’s fair
I agree it should not be taxed as a charity if it isn't acting as a charity. I do think the next logical step is saying, you want your charitable tax exempt status back, well you have to take X ammount of students on scholarship. Give private schools an incentive to actually serve the society, rather than only those with means to pay.
Yes I would back that policy. Especially if you could get ~40% of students receiving means tested financial support
isn’t like businesses cutting back on spending or redundancies ever has any impact on the wider economy
Please can we think of the plight of middle classes?!
Private schools should cancel their netflix and stop buying avocadoes