Schooliform

[multitool]

Not for the wealthy...

 

[icowden]

Not for the wealthy...

Not just for the wealthy (a fact you seem determined to ignore - apparently binaries are fine when it applies to schools but not when applied to gender - go figure).

As the example shows. Two people can afford to send one child to a private school using one person's average salary.
Two people can afford to send two children to private school provided that they have equity in their property and can release enough of it to pay for the second child.

Stewart is also failing to take into account Scholarships (this offers a 10% reduction in my daughters school - few private schools offer absolute scholarships any more) and of course Bursaries (what used to be called Assisted Places). I had an assisted place because I was bright. My sister had a fee reduction because my dad was a teacher at the school, and later the head chose to waive her fees when my father died. We both benefitted from private education but not because my family was rich. My children are able to access private school because there are two of us, we got lucky with house prices, my wife had a heart attack which paid off some of the mortgage, we have both worked hard and now have reasonably good salaries and both children have scholarships.

Adding VAT to private school fees will help to ensure that Private Schools are for the wealthy and put added pressure on State schools that are currently unable to provide suitable education for some children. Children with mental health issues, neurodiversity, eating disorders, other medical needs are far better able to be looked at in Private Schools. In many areas there are no state schools with small class sizes and adequate pastoral support.

As I have pointed out before, Labour's plan is massively flawed. You don't break something before you have put something else in place to deal with the breakage. Mind you, the articles are irrelevant as Labour are unlikely to get the change through Parliament even if they have a massive majority.

 

[AndyRM]

I noticed this about the vaping thing earlier - seems relatively straightforward and not stupidly expensive.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68639100

Doubt it works round the back of the bike sheds though.

 

[fozy tornip]

Not just for the wealthy (a fact you seem determined to ignore - apparently binaries are fine when it applies to schools but not when applied to gender - go figure).

As the example shows. Two people can afford to send one child to a private school using one person's average salary.
Two people can afford to send two children to private school provided that they have equity in their property and can release enough of it to pay for the second child.

Stewart is also failing to take into account Scholarships (this offers a 10% reduction in my daughters school - few private schools offer absolute scholarships any more) and of course Bursaries (what used to be called Assisted Places). I had an assisted place because I was bright. My sister had a fee reduction because my dad was a teacher at the school, and later the head chose to waive her fees when my father died. We both benefitted from private education but not because my family was rich. My children are able to access private school because there are two of us, we got lucky with house prices, my wife had a heart attack which paid off some of the mortgage, we have both worked hard and now have reasonably good salaries and both children have scholarships.

Adding VAT to private school fees will help to ensure that Private Schools are for the wealthy and put added pressure on State schools that are currently unable to provide suitable education for some children. Children with mental health issues, neurodiversity, eating disorders, other medical needs are far better able to be looked at in Private Schools. In many areas there are no state schools with small class sizes and adequate pastoral support.

As I have pointed out before, Labour's plan is massively flawed. You don't break something before you have put something else in place to deal with the breakage. Mind you, the articles are irrelevant as Labour are unlikely to get the change through Parliament even if they have a massive majority.

You've convinced me.

 

[qigong chimp]

Children with mental health issues, neurodiversity, eating disorders, other medical needs are far better able to be looked at in Private Schools.

Perhaps if having sharp-elbowed middle-class parents qualified as a protected characteristic under Equalities legislation, VAT exemptions could apply?

 

[multitool]

As the example shows. Two people can afford to send one child to a private school using one person's average salary.
Two people can afford to send two children to private school provided that they have equity in their property and can release enough of it to pay for the second child.

Ah! There's my mistake. I hadn't realised that equity doesn't count as wealth.

I had an assisted place because I was bright.

Even if you say so yourself

Children with mental health issues, neurodiversity, eating disorders, other medical needs are far better able to be looked at in Private Schools.

It's still a privilege for the wealthy, regardless of the needs if the children

As I have pointed out before, Labour's plan is massively flawed. You don't break something before you have put something else in place to deal with the breakage. Mind you, the articles are irrelevant as Labour are unlikely to get the change through Parliament even if they have a massive majority.

Bet they do.

 

[icowden]

It's still a privilege for the wealthy, regardless of the needs if the children

And also for the not wealthy who get bursaries and assisted places and who would be most affected by VAT.
Oh I forgot - poor people don't count. They can just fail at a state school that can't meet their needs due to chronic underfunding.

The kids aren't important to you at all are they?

 

[icowden]

Bet they do.

From https://www.mha.co.uk/insights/vat-private-schools-fees-a-labour-government

HM Treasury (“HMT”) would need an Act of Parliament to change primary VAT legislation. Specifically, the definition of an “eligible body” in Note (1), Group 6, Schedule 9, VAT Act 1994. The definition of eligible body in Note 1 relies on several Education Acts, together with other separate qualifying criteria, which include a restriction on the distribution of profits.

It should be noted that in consultation with the education sector, HMT and HMRC have previously tried and failed to remove several anomalies from the VAT exemption for the provision of education.

The combination of archaic legislation, the need for parliamentary scrutiny of any changes, a reasonable consultation process, and a lead time for such a fundamental shift in tax treatment, will cause a lead time to any changes. It is impossible to be certain, but particularly given the bottleneck of parliamentary time, our best estimate is that these changes will not be introduced until at least the payment of fees for the 2026 – 27 school year. This estimate is based on the assumption that the General Election is no earlier than the fourth quarter of 2024.

So *if* Starmer introduces a bill as soon as he comes to power in Q4, and assuming that that bill can pass regulatory hurdles, it could be introduced for 2026-27 school year. If there is any delay whatsoever, that moves to a year later. This also assumes a simple bill which only does this one thing. Given that HMT and HMRC have other anomalies that they would like to remove, the Bill may go through multiple changes and additions, which again would push back the time frame. He may have to emulate the Conservatives however and ram through the legislation without the approval of the Lords.

Additionally Starmer may have to find school places for around 30,000 to 40,000 children - if you assume that the 5% of families in the "poorest" category will need to move to State School. Some Private Schools are very small so they may close entirely. There will also be an increase in requests for SEND provision as the least wealthy families will usually be sending their children to Private School precisely because those children would not cope with a large state Secondary School. There will be an increased burden on CAHMS similarly.

 

[icowden]

Ah! There's my mistake. I hadn't realised that equity doesn't count as wealth.

Being able to increase your mortgage on a semi-detached isn't quite the same thing as owning a 10 bedroom house with a Gym, Pool, Cinema and your own Yacht.

 

[multitool]

It's still wealth

 

[multitool]

The kids aren't important to you at all are they?

I don't see why the children of the wealthy should get special treatment. What about the other 94%?

Your point is so utterly cretinous it's like me saying you only care about rich kids.

 

[theclaud]

Perhaps if having sharp-elbowed middle-class parents qualified as a protected characteristic under Equalities legislation, VAT exemptions could apply?

I know someone who thinks DryRobe wearers are a persecuted minority.

 

[icowden]

I don't see why the children of the wealthy should get special treatment. What about the other 94%?
Your point is so utterly cretinous it's like me saying you only care about rich kids.

I thought you were the one who hated binaries? Let me try and make this clearer for you:

Private Schools are not just for the children of the wealthy.

The MAJORITY of children at Private School are from wealthy families. However about 10% on average are from middle income families and of those probably 2-5% are from low income families.

Guess which children will be most affected?

Clue: It isn't the ones from the wealthy families. Because... they have more money!

 

[multitool]

It's still a tax-fee bonus for the rich , even if you somehow think you are poor, IC

 

[AndyRM]

I know someone who thinks DryRobe wearers are a persecuted minority.

Got a point to be fair.