|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 2, 2024 15:42:45 GMT
I think the Labour Party policy here is partly/mostly ideologically driven. Plus a recognition that they need to raise taxes somehow and this is far more palatable to their natural support base than increasing income tax etc. I don't entirely disagree with the concept that VAT should be payable on private school fees*. Turning it around, why exempt that and not other things? I did predict it a few years ago when I was discussing with a friend whether they put their child into private secondary or take the option they had of getting into a very very good state school (one of the best in the country).
A big problem with this - as is being discussed - is implementation. If you bring it in at 20% from the get go that could lead to considerable upheaval and lead to significant additional pressure on a state sector already under considerable strain. And that is without considering the disruption at the individual level if parents have to pull children out of existing schools. Perhaps they could set the principle but charge at a lower rate with planned incremental uplifts over a period of 5 years. both parents and schools can then make adjustments and decisions over time.
Some schools may be able to adjust e.g. by increasing class sizes. Others I've heard it rumoured (or is it scare mongering ?) might have to convert over to being state schools ?
One irony is that quite likely the number of free scholarships that schools/foundations fund for children who wouldn't otherwise be able to go is likely to be cut significantly.
*In answer to another point: I'm not sure that charities in general should be exempt from VAT. It is difficult to discern a logical argument for this.
|
|
|
|
Post by mostlywrong on Jul 2, 2024 15:53:08 GMT
How much do they think they're getting? I suspect they are doing it not to raise tax but as an ideological strategy. i.e. They probably believe all children are equal and should have ideally an equal start in life. I'm not sure but on balance I think its reasonable that private schools are not given the same privileges as other charities. The obvious problem is that there are too many children chasing too few school places. I wonder why that could be? Perhaps Farage knows the answer.... My understanding is that most, if not all, European countries do not impose VAT on education. The collective view has always been that education is for the benefit of the individual and the country.
And I struggle to understand the motive behind the ideas of any political party these days so you may well be correct. 
And I doubt that Mr Farage has an answer either, although I might argue that he is unlikely ever to get as far as deciding tax policy.
I was about to end there, but was struck by a thought. There are some wonderful charities out there that teach English to people who are newly arrived on these shores. Which is education. Will these wonderful charities have to pay VAT @ 20% on their efforts in this Labour future?
How do you decide which form of education is charged? If I turn up at a private college to learn computer coding (say), will I be charged 20% VAT on trying to improve my job prospects?
MW
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,666 
Likes: 2,971
|
Post by michaelc on Jul 2, 2024 15:54:24 GMT
I think the Labour Party policy here is partly/mostly ideologically driven. Plus a recognition that they need to raise taxes somehow and this is far more palatable to their natural support base than increasing income tax etc. I don't entirely disagree with the concept that VAT should be payable on private school fees*. Turning it around, why exempt that and not other things? I did predict it a few years ago when I was discussing with a friend whether they put their child into private secondary or take the option they had of getting into a very very good state school (one of the best in the country). A big problem with this - as is being discussed - is implementation. If you bring it in at 20% from the get go that could lead to considerable upheaval and lead to significant additional pressure on a state sector already under considerable strain. And that is without considering the disruption at the individual level if parents have to pull children out of existing schools. Perhaps they could set the principle but charge at a lower rate with planned incremental uplifts over a period of 5 years. both parents and schools can then make adjustments and decisions over time. Some schools may be able to adjust e.g. by increasing class sizes. Others I've heard it rumoured (or is it scare mongering ?) might have to convert over to being state schools ? One irony is that quite likely the number of free scholarships that schools/foundations fund for children who wouldn't otherwise be able to go is likely to be cut significantly. *In answer to another point: I'm not sure that charities in general should be exempt from VAT. It is difficult to discern a logical argument for this. tis wot I said 
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,666
Likes: 2,971
|
Post by michaelc on Jul 2, 2024 15:56:08 GMT
How much do they think they're getting? I suspect they are doing it not to raise tax but as an ideological strategy. i.e. They probably believe all children are equal and should have ideally an equal start in life. I'm not sure but on balance I think its reasonable that private schools are not given the same privileges as other charities. The obvious problem is that there are too many children chasing too few school places. I wonder why that could be? Perhaps Farage knows the answer.... My understanding is that most, if not all, European countries do not impose VAT on education. The collective view has always been that education is for the benefit of the individual and the country.
And I struggle to understand the motive behind the ideas of any political party these days so you may well be correct.
And I doubt that Mr Farage has an answer either, although I might argue that he is unlikely ever to get as far as deciding tax policy.
I was about to end there, but was struck by a thought. There are some wonderful charities out there that teach English to people who are newly arrived on these shores. Which is education. Will these wonderful charities have to pay VAT @ 20% on their efforts in this Labour future?
How do you decide which form of education is charged? If I turn up at a private college to learn computer coding (say), will I be charged 20% VAT on trying to improve my job prospects?
MW
Some interesting points there but for why Farage might have an answer surely its obvious that the core problem is one of supply and demand. He plans to reduce demand or at least stop it increasing further.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,957
Likes: 5,128
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 2, 2024 16:04:57 GMT
I have no issue with charities being exempt from VAT. I just don't see why businesses that provide education should be charities. (...and I went to a private school for some years)(Nor do I believe state schools should be religious in character, but that's a different debate). Parliamentary briefing doc on the subject - commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05222/AIUI, the way they justify that charitable status is usually through providing a relatively small number of assisted places, which they say is "for public benefit". For example, Eton say they give £9m in bursaries each year to 270 pupils, averaging 70% of fees, with 100 paying nothing - out of 1,350. Fees are £50k/year, so even that 70% leaves £15k to pay... www.etoncollege.com/admissions/financial-aid/Official stats seem to suggest 600k kids go to independent schools in the UK, with £1.6bn from VAT on fees. I make that an average of about £2,670 per kid VAT, so £13,350 fees. Will families who can already afford £13k+ per kid REALLY find another £2.5k impossible to raise? No, so the threats of schools closing down and state schools being overwhelmed are mostly hollow. There's 10.3m school-age kids in the UK, so only about 6% go to private schools... |
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 2, 2024 16:31:49 GMT
I think the Labour Party policy here is partly/mostly ideologically driven. Plus a recognition that they need to raise taxes somehow and this is far more palatable to their natural support base than increasing income tax etc. I don't entirely disagree with the concept that VAT should be payable on private school fees*. Turning it around, why exempt that and not other things? I did predict it a few years ago when I was discussing with a friend whether they put their child into private secondary or take the option they had of getting into a very very good state school (one of the best in the country). A big problem with this - as is being discussed - is implementation. If you bring it in at 20% from the get go that could lead to considerable upheaval and lead to significant additional pressure on a state sector already under considerable strain. And that is without considering the disruption at the individual level if parents have to pull children out of existing schools. Perhaps they could set the principle but charge at a lower rate with planned incremental uplifts over a period of 5 years. both parents and schools can then make adjustments and decisions over time. Some schools may be able to adjust e.g. by increasing class sizes. Others I've heard it rumoured (or is it scare mongering ?) might have to convert over to being state schools ? One irony is that quite likely the number of free scholarships that schools/foundations fund for children who wouldn't otherwise be able to go is likely to be cut significantly. *In answer to another point: I'm not sure that charities in general should be exempt from VAT. It is difficult to discern a logical argument for this. tis wot I said Not really: you were in effect dog whistling about immigration being the root cause but without mentioning it. I clearly was not. Instead I was pointing the finger at the kind of P*** poor planning that has been endemic of government in this country for too long, coupled with conditions that are haemorrhaging experienced human resources from the sector. So not really anything in common with what you said, nor with Farage.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 2, 2024 16:33:00 GMT
I have no issue with charities being exempt from VAT. I just don't see why businesses that provide education should be charities. ...and the logic as to why a charity should be at a commercial advantage to a non-charity is what ?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,957
Likes: 5,128
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 2, 2024 17:17:47 GMT
I have no issue with charities being exempt from VAT. I just don't see why businesses that provide education should be charities. ...and the logic as to why a charity should be at a commercial advantage to a non-charity is what ? Tax breaks. But few (proper) charities compete directly with (normal) companies.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 2, 2024 17:44:32 GMT
and the logic as to why a charity should be at a commercial advantage to a non-charity is what ? But few (proper) charities compete directly with (normal) companies. I know it is a tax break. The question was what is the logical reasoning for giving charities a favourable status ? Tax breaks are by design there to skew economic decisions (where to spend money for example). what is it about charities that mean we should want to skew things in there direction. Actually quite a few charities do compete against commercial companies directly, for example when it comes to contracting to provide certain services to government bodies. But also any organisation that is looking for you to spend money is in competition with anyone else doing the same. That National Trust property is in competition for you to spend money on their entrance fee and their cafe facilities instead of going to Cineworld and watching a film and buying popcorn and a hotdog. Or if you prefer, the National Trust wants you to buy membership from them rather than a 12 month Cineworld pass.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,666
Likes: 2,971
|
Post by michaelc on Jul 2, 2024 19:29:58 GMT
tis wot I said Not really: you were in effect dog whistling about immigration being the root cause but without mentioning it. I clearly was not. Instead I was pointing the finger at the kind of P*** poor planning that has been endemic of government in this country for too long, coupled with conditions that are haemorrhaging experienced human resources from the sector. So not really anything in common with what you said, nor with Farage. No, there was a lot in common between the posts. You even used the same word as I "ideological" and many other paragraphs in common. But I suspect you think I'm a rabid Right winger and thus couldn't associate with anything I said but when you read both posts there's one heck of a lot in common. As for "dog whistling about immigration", yes I've thought about it a lot more over recent years. In the past most people who were against it were indeed likely racists. I don't think there is anything racist at all about wanting to reduce (or not increase) via immigration the total number of people that live here. I mean, is a billion acceptable? 5 billion? At some point you hit a number which is too high - nothing whatsoever to do with the make up of those people. I would say we've already passed that point. Those in the cities and towns probably don't notice it so much but certainly in my "village" (now basically a town) it is evident everywhere you look. Yes mistakes were made around planning for this population as you or Adrian said but if you're not growing at a huge rate you don't need to plan so much. Suspect this is at the nub of why Reform is doing so well in the polls.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 2, 2024 21:22:50 GMT
Not really: you were in effect dog whistling about immigration being the root cause but without mentioning it. I clearly was not. Instead I was pointing the finger at the kind of P*** poor planning that has been endemic of government in this country for too long, coupled with conditions that are haemorrhaging experienced human resources from the sector. So not really anything in common with what you said, nor with Farage. No, there was a lot in common between the posts. You even used the same word as I "ideological" and many other paragraphs in common. But I suspect you think I'm a rabid Right winger and thus couldn't associate with anything I said but when you read both posts there's one heck of a lot in common. As for "dog whistling about immigration", yes I've thought about it a lot more over recent years. In the past most people who were against it were indeed likely racists. I don't think there is anything racist at all about wanting to reduce (or not increase) via immigration the total number of people that live here. I mean, is a billion acceptable? 5 billion? At some point you hit a number which is too high - nothing whatsoever to do with the make up of those people. I would say we've already passed that point. Those in the cities and towns probably don't notice it so much but certainly in my "village" (now basically a town) it is evident everywhere you look. Yes mistakes were made around planning for this population as you or Adrian said but if you're not growing at a huge rate you don't need to plan so much. Suspect this is at the nub of why Reform is doing so well in the polls. For gawds sake, get real. "A lot in common" is not "the same as". Your sign off line was: "The obvious problem is that there are too many children chasing too few school places. I wonder why that could be? Perhaps Farage knows the answer...."So you a) focussed on the demand side as root cause and b) made a pointed remark which was intending to point the finger at immigration while not actually saying so. Whereas I pointed to the supply side and a failure of government to plan for it, and didn't say anything about immigration. So to summarise that as "That is what I said" is clearly a false statement. You could have said there were points of agreement, which would have been true, but to state there was equivalence was obviously not true. To then complain when I said "no it wasn't" simply compounds it. As to the dog whistle comment, from Wikipedia: "In politics, a dog whistle is the use of coded or suggestive language in political messaging to garner support from a particular group without provoking opposition." I think that definition is a reasonably good fit for mentioning Farage while meaning immigration. I didn't say it was racist or it made you a rabid right winger. If you had paid attention, you would have spotted that in the not distant past I've made the point that concern on immigration is both a political reality and a legitimate one which should and needs to be debated. Albeit it should be an honest debate that clearly acknowledges the demographic challenges that the country has and includes alternative visions of how to tackle that.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jul 2, 2024 21:24:15 GMT
Not really: you were in effect dog whistling about immigration being the root cause but without mentioning it. I clearly was not. Instead I was pointing the finger at the kind of P*** poor planning that has been endemic of government in this country for too long, coupled with conditions that are haemorrhaging experienced human resources from the sector. So not really anything in common with what you said, nor with Farage. No, there was a lot in common between the posts. You even used the same word as I "ideological" and many other paragraphs in common. But I suspect you think I'm a rabid Right winger and thus couldn't associate with anything I said but when you read both posts there's one heck of a lot in common. As for "dog whistling about immigration", yes I've thought about it a lot more over recent years. In the past most people who were against it were indeed likely racists. I don't think there is anything racist at all about wanting to reduce (or not increase) via immigration the total number of people that live here. I mean, is a billion acceptable? 5 billion? At some point you hit a number which is too high - nothing whatsoever to do with the make up of those people. I would say we've already passed that point. Those in the cities and towns probably don't notice it so much but certainly in my "village" (now basically a town) it is evident everywhere you look. Yes mistakes were made around planning for this population as you or Adrian said but if you're not growing at a huge rate you don't need to plan so much. Suspect this is at the nub of why Reform is doing so well in the polls. I suspect you think I am a rabid lefty but I do see that you are not making a racist argument. I am delighted by the interest and variety and friendlyness of immigrant people and I go out of my way to talk to them and make them feel welcome. But if course there is a limit to what the country can take. The rapidly approaching climate catastrophe is going to force a definition of this limit in the near future so it is best planned for now . What do we do when the limits are reached and tens of thousands are waiting to cross from Calais? I write this s someone who believes that in 100 years time there will only be a few clusters of humans left on the planet.
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 1,214
|
Post by travolta on Jul 2, 2024 21:49:25 GMT
Voted Tory,by post,to help prevent a LibDem t0sser from winning .
ONLY THEN read the Conservatives' background (a shoe in to replace retiring 4th richest family in the UK ) only to find I'd voted for a another complete charleton.
I'd be greenfaced,only its red.
In effect,I spoilt my ballot paper this year .
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,957
Likes: 5,128
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 2, 2024 22:03:53 GMT
Tax breaks.But few (proper) charities compete directly with (normal) companies. I know it is a tax break. The question was what is the logical reasoning for giving charities a favourable status ? Tax breaks are by design there to skew economic decisions (where to spend money for example). what is it about charities that mean we should want to skew things in there direction. They provide a benefit to the public, instead of generating profit. They provide medical or social or societal support, for instance. In return, all their finances, all their governance... publicly available for inspection. register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/4010044
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jul 2, 2024 22:08:18 GMT
Voted Tory,by post,to help prevent a LibDem t0sser from winning . ONLY THEN read the Conservatives' background (a shoe in to replace retiring 4th richest family in the UK ) only to find I'd voted for a another complete charleton. I'd be greenfaced,only its red. In effect,I spoilt my ballot paper this year . Not if your man wins by one vote!
|
|
