Private school tax breaks a 'luxury', says Phillipson
Private school tax breaks a 'luxury', says Phillipson
The education secretary defends ending tax breaks for private schools as the policy is set to begin.
Do you think the government should tax private school fees?
Seems like a fair way to tax richer parent IMO. Given
Approximately 93% of children in the UK currently attend state schools, Phillipson said. Only the richest people are actually really attending private schools and most people are already priced out of them.
The money raised would go towards investing in state schools and teacher recruitment, Phillipson wrote in the Telegraph., external She added that £1.8bn would be raised a year by 2029-30.
That would be nice. But lets be real. Will the state schools see this money? Or will it be funneled to other things?
But the Independent Schools Council (ISC), which represents most of the UK's private schools, said the money the government claimed it would raise was an "estimate, not a fact".
Yeah, I can believe that as well.
"Labour's decision to tax education will mean thousands of hardworking parents will no longer be able to afford to send their children, including those with SEND [special educational needs and disabilities], to private school."
Oh no, a few thousand not quite rich enough kids will have to attend a state schools like 93% of other children. What ever will they do!?!?! Not sure about that call out for SEND specifically though... seems like fear mongering to me. Are there not already loads in state schools? Are state schools not equipped for this already? And will any of those extra funds be used to improve that situation at all?
The bit about SEND is a lie because they are exempt from the new tax. The "hardworking parents" bit always annoys me, it implies the 93% just aren't working hard enough. If that's the case I'm sure those who can't afford the tax can just work a bit harder to cover it.
They won't raise any money from this anyway, the new law will mean these schools will now be able to claim vat back on purchases which they couldn't before. So most of what is charged to the parents will be offset by the schools vat reclaim.
So this is just an excuse for the schools to bump the prices (old price plus vat) while reaping a little extra in vat reclaim and a totally insignificant extra tax goes to the gov.
I'm all for taxing the richest, but this shit is dumb mediabate
The new loopholes are indeed stupid, but the idea is sound.
Not just the richest send their kids to private schools. My kids went there, and I'm far from rich. But it was our choice to send them there, and at the same time, I support eliminating the VAT exemption. One motivation that drives middle-class parents to send their kids to private schools is to help them queue-jump when applying for university. But from a broader perspective, teaching to optimise exam scores is not the same thing as education, and hothouse flowers are not robust.
Defunding the education rat race is a good thing in the long run. Having a two-tier system just reinforces inequality.
Kids plural - taking the average private school fees today at £18k/pupil and assuming there's at least 2 gives £36k/year, if you can afford that on top of living expenses you're better off than most.
Just because you don't have a Ferrari for every day of the week doesn't mean you are not well off. The fact that you can afford to send your kids to private school kind of proves that you are richer than the vast majority of the population.
There's nothing wrong with sending your kids to private school but you need to understand how privileged you are.
Just remember that because inequality, CPI inflation and property prices have been increasing, rich people have been experiencing real terms deflation. They can more than afford this. Yes, it will nudge a few marginally rich people away from private education. But if that benefits the education of poorer kids then I'm in favour of it.
It's not an important tax though and won't accomplish much economically.
We need a tax on assets. It's not fair play to hoard an inhuman amount resources and use them to crush your fellow countrymen.
I never really like it when people decide what others can and can’t afford.
Education should be free. Being employed in education and good at the job should be a golden ticket in life. Education should be the greatest expense of any government. Tax the fucking rich (income, wealth, everything).
Taxing a few private schools is cute. That's it.
It's a start, though.
It removes a tax break enjoyed purely by rich people. Of course it should happen.
The reasons independents schools don’t pay VAT are historic and multifaceted.
One thing that is conveniently left out of the argument is the fact that every pupil in private education saves the state £7000 per year by not taking a place in state school.
It’s not serious economic policy, but low calibre populism from Starmer because it’s such an emotive issue.
Oddly, I would have accepted this from Corbyn who was sincere in his socialist convictions, but I don’t swallow it from this neo-liberal corporatist rat, because there are plenty of other places to garner surplus that he refuses to look at.
Fair point, would love to see the numbers on this. But it smells of trickle down economics to me. VAT is 20%, I assume this is what will be paid. And lets assume it is on the tuition that parents will now pay. Seems the average tuition paid is around £15k (rounded) for private schools. Which means about a 3k increase in the tuition. That would mean for every 3 students in a private school you could afford to send 1 to public school with room to spare. So to have a negative impact this policy would have to have a what 1 out of every 4 students to drop out of public school and return to private school? Or 25% of students give or take a lot.
But according to the article:
In October however, the ISC said some private schools reported a 4.6% drop in pupil attendance in secondary school uptake, which it attributed to parents now deciding against sending their children to private school.
Which is vastly less than 25% which should make this policy a net positive with loads of head room for my math crude back of the napkin attempt.
Thus, smells a lot like trickle down economics argument to me.
Would love to see a more concrete analysis of this.
It won't be anything like a 20% uplift though as the schools will also be able to reclaim vat on purchases which they didn't before. Obviously they are not advertising this point, but I'm surprised the right wing media haven't been shouting about it this, they could just be that lazy though.
Well yes - theres nothing obviously wrong with your maths - and it’s not my position that this policy will be a net negative for the treasury. At least in the short term, the VAT will be paid, with parents or the schools eating the increase.
What I hoped to show, was that it’s not outlandish to argue for some VAT relief for parents paying schools fees, given that by not taking up a place in state they create a space in state school that is worth around £7000 per year to the government . There remains plenty of precedent for VAT relief on children - there’s no VAT on books, no VAT on clothes, no VAT on baby food, I even think child care is free of VAT
Goods and services being tax exempt is a way of incentivizing people to buy them. I don't see the reason, why we would not incentivize patents to invest in education of their children.
It's actually compulsory so no need to incentivise anything
That argument falls apart because state schools exist and 93% of children already attend. Which means private schools are not very popular despite their tax exempt status. So it is not encouraging many people to attend them and it is not like not going to a private school is not investing in your child's education since a free alternative that is not a complete shit hole exists. Turns out well funded public services can be a good thing and we don't need to privatize everything to see the best results.
In reality this seems more like a tax on rich parents who are the only ones that can afford expensive private schools in the first place all to hopefully better fund the free for everyone else state schools that most people already use.
What you are saying is, there is a reason to discourage people to give their children worse education justs because they can afford it? Education is a universally good thing, not unlike healthcare. Everybody should have access to as much as possible and society can afford. Some people can obviously afford the top of healthcare by paying extra. So what you are saying is: abolish being rich. But where do incebtives come from? Because some members of society used to eat first so they are strong and defend the group. Not that today's well fed members of society do that, but they should. Nothing wrong with eating first, but they have to do their part, which they don't. And 2% tax on 7% of pupils in your county won't change that or significantly impact public school funding. They have you fight other groups in society so you won't take revenge on the bad CEOs in this world that eat first.
A tiny amount of tax on the luxury "schools" for the ultra-rich can be used to invest in actual real schools for the education of the entire country.