this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
99 points (100.0% liked)

UK Politics

3150 readers
24 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
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.

[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
99
Private school tax breaks a 'luxury', says Phillipson (www.bbc.co.uk)
submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Do you think the government should tax private school fees?

top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 days ago (1 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.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I never really like it when people decide what others can and can’t afford.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It is still up to them to decide if they want to send their kids to private school, it is just no longer ger subsidized by the public.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You can't formulate tax policy without estimating that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I would hope those formulating tax policy have access to a bit more data than jonnyonline.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Or just access to some good old common sense like "let's abolish a tax break that only well off people can access, and which they use to segregate education into rich and poor silos".

[–] nous 22 points 4 days ago (3 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 13 points 3 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago

It's a start, though.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days 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 7 points 3 days ago (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days 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 4 points 3 days 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).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 days ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago

It's actually compulsory so no need to incentivise anything

[–] nous 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] nous 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Education is a universally good thing, not unlike healthcare. Everybody should have access to as much as possible and society can afford.

Yes this is true. And how do we get everybody access to as much as possible? Provide good quality services for free to everyone. Not by encouraging a tiny fraction of of people that private schools are vastly better then public ones.

. And 2% tax on 7% of pupils in your county won’t change that or significantly impact public school funding.

VAT, which I believe this is what they where exempt from, is 20%, not 2%. It might still be a small amount overall, but why should that matter? Any more money towards public education is a benefit. I would like to see other efforts to increase that further from other areas but I am not going to be against this just because it is not a big enough difference.

So what you are saying is: abolish being rich.

Ultra super rich, yes. They don't need all that money and it could be used to better the lives of a lot more people. The wealth gap increasing does not improve the lives of people, just they few that are on top.

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.

I mean yeah? That is my point. They should but they don't. So what benefit do they give us? There has been a big push for trickle down economics for a long time... but it does not work. All we have seen is an increased wealth gap and more people getting into poverty. We need to start taxing the rich and actually funnel that money to the people that need it - defend the group as a whole, which they are failing to do currently.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Just to say it again. I agree with taxing the rich. I don'ta agree where you raise a minuscule amount of taxes from 501c private schools. Let's call for a 30% wealth tax so we get a wealth ceiling.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

501c? What do US tax orgs have to do with UK education?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

It's estimated at over a billion pounds, which isn't insignificant at all in UK terms.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Well, if it's just a tiny amount, why not instead use a big amount of taxes to improve public schools so private schools have nothing better to offer? And then tax wealth

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

That would be ideal, yes :)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It’s not a tiny amount . It’s 20%.

And who are these ultra rich you are talking about ?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I mean the richest 7% of people in the country, who according to the article, actually use these special schools.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That’s a made up number , isn’t it ?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Well, the article says "approximately 93%" go to proper schools, so I suppose it must be very slightly made up?

I also made a slight assumption that 100% minus 93% would leave us with 7% - but I didn't go to Eton, so I assume my maths is likely incorrect.

Anyway, to be fair, I am making an assumption and I'm missing out on those who are home schooled, as well as those in referral units or special education or those who don't go to school at all.

As a side note - do home schoolers and non-schoolers recieve special tax breaks for "not using up a state school space"?

Anyway, it can't affect the numbers that much, as it still shows as "7% actually use these schools" on the government's own website:

gov.uk - Elitism in Britain (2019): "Just 7% of British people are privately educated"

Note that this is your Tory friends from 5 years ago - it's not the current Labour Government who are proposing removing the tax breaks on private schools.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You’ve drawn a false equivalence between the richest 7% and the 7% that use private schools.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

You're right actually - I guess all those Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg types all have about 12 kids each, so it's likely an even smaller number.

I suppose other than the odd scholarship/inheritance bits here and there, I guess it must generally be somewhere between the top 1% and top 5% using the private schools system.