this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024

120 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

3155 readers

185 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

flamingos@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

120

Private school tax breaks a 'luxury', says Phillipson (www.bbc.co.uk)

submitted 1 week ago by SleafordMod@feddit.uk to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

61 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Do you think the government should tax private school fees?

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] nous@programming.dev 25 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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?

[–] Buckshot@programming.dev 16 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If private schools have better SEND provision then they should take all SEND kids.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Private schools don't because special needs kids are not profitable. They cost a lot to support. Much better to let the state deal with that.

[–] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago

Of course. It's just hard to be sympathetic with people who complain about losing privileged access to something that is already denied to the vast majority of others through no fault of their own. What people deserve shouldn't be based on how much money their parents have. And don't forget that the reason most rich people are rich is because they successfully exploit the labour of others. Resources get automatically redistributed upwards in our economy. The wonky thing about this Labour policy though is that it looks like it punishes the 'poorer' rich people most.

[–] locahosr443@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

The new loopholes are indeed stupid, but the idea is sound.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

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.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 6 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 17 points 1 week ago (14 children)

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.

load more comments (14 replies)

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Nfamwap@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

It's a start, though.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

It removes a tax break enjoyed purely by rich people. Of course it should happen.

[–] zante@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] nous@programming.dev 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] locahosr443@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] zante@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] nous@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But while that is technically true how would you form a policy around it? If you can afford to pay for private school but not the VAT have it VAT free? But if you can afford the VAT then you must pay it? That would be very hard to enforce and ripe for abuse. A blanket VAT/no VAT on private schools is far easier and overall will be a positive even if some more students will drop down to the state paying for their education.

And yeah, having VAT exception rules for stuff children need to buy, like books cloths food etc is good. But why is that good? Because it applies to everyone not just a select few people rich enough to buy the best books, designer cloths and luxury foods. And public schools are already VAT free - by virtue of being free. This is not a blanket tax on all education, just the luxury side of it which only the wealthy currently partake in.

Pointing out the £7000 cost without putting it into context seems like an argument a conservative would use against this policy - even though there is an overall net gain with it taken into account. Yes we should take it into account but so should we the amount of money brought in. And that is how we decide if it is a good policy or not (and it seems like it will be).

The only real concern here would be if the government implements the tax and does not give that back to the schools - which TBH is a real concern. Though even if it is neutral - the government paying for the extra students but not giving extra overall funds I would still say it is worth while as it is a form, even a small one, of tax on the rich. So long as it does not hurt the public schools (which the government would have not pay for the extra students for that to be true - I am not sure they would go that far).

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This "I saved the government £7000 because I took my children out of the state sector so I deserve a tax break for my public-spirited benevolence" is so bogus.

No, it wasn't public spirit, it was self interest. They reckon their kids will get a better education that can help them stay on the top of the socioeconomic pile and they won't have to mix with the plebs. No tax break for that shit. It's not good for society.

load more comments