RuamRudy

That money, instead of being spent of profit making entities, needs to be ploughed back into the public sector. Unfortunately the tories have wrecked so many institutions across the UK, education is only one of the sectors to which their greed and ignorance caused massive damage. But the answer to their failure is not to continue it.

Then the government should fix the problem, not give concessions to a tiny minority. So let's not pretend for one second that special education kids up and down the country are being supported by fee paying schools.

In Finland for-profit schools are banned altogether.

There already is a legal obligation on education authorities to provide appropriate learning opportunities for all children. If parents are not happy with the the provision on offer they are free to seek alternatives. That will not change. They remain free to seek alternative education resources.

I have no idea about the veracity of your numbers, but if correct then thats is a lot of money into the economy, jobs in the construction industry, suppliers, skills and learning, plus new teachers and the knock on effect through the circular economy - that's a win win that will reverberate in communities across the country for years.

I must admit that I am at a bit of a loss here. This is like trying to reason with a toddler, and unfortunately I am not particularly good at trying to argue with those for whom rational thinking is not a learned skill. The state provides access to free primary and secondary education for each and every child in the UK. There is no need for parents to send their children to fee paying schools, therefore fee paying schools are not essential. That some people can afford it, and choose to do so is a private matter and is entirely up to them. They are, quite rightly, free to go down that avenue. But their choice is, like most other services the public chooses to consume, vatable. The above is not a claim. The above is fact. You may not like it but that does not give my point any less validity.

I cannot provide a link which definitively confirms that fee paying schools are non essential. Can you prove that they are essential? Also, about that human rights thing - exactly what human rights are being violated?

Is this really your argument? If I can't provide a link to show that fee paying schools in the UK are not essential then I am wrong? That doesn't make their case any more valid. No, I didn't. What human rights are being violated?

1) That's not an analogous example; 2) No, but nobody is suggesting to the contrary.

Or the politics of your warped mind?

But that was your argument, or at least the argument of Nick Carter icp - that exemptions are not subsidies. But then you backed it up with an article that agreed that they are, cherry picking from it one small section as if it was the definitive conclusion of the article. Spoiler - it isn't.

Fee paying schools are non essential - absolutely no doubt about that. If you are confused then the confusion is all yours.

From the article you posted: "The Court said tax exemption is a subsidy, just not a cash subsidy. " The big graphic at the top of the article is: This is the article which supposedly makes you right and me wrong. Well, in your head at least.

Well done - it's just a pity that the title of the article can't even back up Mr Walz's assertion with confidence.

You highlight, precisely, the very thing that you and so many others here fail to understand. Subsidies don't need to take the form of one party receiving money from another. By not imposing a standard tariff on one particular party, the exempt party is, in effect, subsidised by the government, thus by the taxpayer.

I suggest that it is you who is among those hard of understanding. By being exempt from vat, these private businesses were receiving a subsidy.

If, after decades of being in business, it can't function without the allocation of exemptions that most private businesses don't get to enjoy, it's business model is based upon not having to share a level playing field. I don't deny that, nor does the government. That's why it provides free education for school age students.

That really isn't a justification for continuing it. Are you sure that you know that those words really mean?

That depends entirely upon the nature of the service. Non essential services which are a matter of personal preference should not, in my opinion, be exempt from vat. What, specifically, makes you say that?

It's not difficult. When one pays for a service, generally VAT is charged on top. If that service is exempt then the loss of VAT is a loss to the taxpayer.

It's right up there in the headline.

Prominent people take a very public stand to promote child safety; people who obsessively ooze hatred at the merest suggestion of their name ignore the message and attack the messenger.

If this company's business model was reliant upon taxpayer subsidies then it was clearly not a viable long term business, or it was run by people not up to the task of managing a business.

Or, just maybe, she might have been happy that her choice to privately educate her child wasn't being subsidised by the taxpayer, and that she would willingly have paid vat like a normal consumer of private services.

Brits voted for Brexit; Scots voted to remain part of the UK - when it comes to voting for dumb outcomes, we can't really claim any intellectual superiority here.