Looming Crisis: Private Schools Face Closures Amid VAT Hike

[jayboy]

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

They could send their kids to a state school if they wanted to. It is their choice to go private.

 

Spin it any way you want, this is a policy which closes a tax loophole and raises money for the Exchequer to spend on public services.

 

Your rather crass comment about parents choice probably reflects the government position.They don't care about these children and hate the idea of private education and are motivated by class envy ( to be fair usually chippy lower middle class rather than working class).

 

 

There is no tax loophole.Education has never been taxed.

 

It is unlikely there will be significant net funds raised.In any case any funds raised are fungible and will go into the Exchequer pot.They will be not be ring fenced and may as well end up in funding more public sector pay increases.

[jayboy]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It seems the wider public back Labour in this:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/dec/31/labours-private-school-tax-plan-strongly-backed-by-public-poll-shows

 

 

What is PEPF that commissioned this poll? Do they have any policy agenda one way or the other? Oh, they turn out to be a left wing pressure group dedicated to end private education.

 

Even if this poll should be discounted - which it should be - I don't disagree that a majority probably favour a toff bashing policy.They probably also favour capital punishment and deportation of immigrants.Government should do what is right not what the crowd is baying for

[BlueScouse]

PEPF is Private Education Policy Forum

 

https://www.pepf.co.uk/

[The Cyclist]

37 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It seems the wider public back Labour in this:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/dec/31/labours-private-school-tax-plan-strongly-backed-by-public-poll-shows

 

 

The UCL, part funded by the EU, part funded by the Government

 

Must be bang on the money and totally unbiased.

[Chomper Higgot]

47 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

What is PEPF that commissioned this poll? Do they have any policy agenda one way or the other? Oh, they turn out to be a left wing pressure group dedicated to end private education.

 

Even if this poll should be discounted - which it should be - I don't disagree that a majority probably favour a toff bashing policy.They probably also favour capital punishment and deportation of immigrants.Government should do what is right not what the crowd is baying for

Labour doing what is right.

 

On this particular issue it’s clear the wider public agree.

 

I suspect many don’t like the idea of people buying advantage over their own children and doing so free of VAT.

 

 

[vinny41]

59 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

What is PEPF that commissioned this poll? Do they have any policy agenda one way or the other? Oh, they turn out to be a left wing pressure group dedicated to end private education.

 

Even if this poll should be discounted - which it should be - I don't disagree that a majority probably favour a toff bashing policy.They probably also favour capital punishment and deportation of immigrants.Government should do what is right not what the crowd is baying for

PEPF is a labour thinktank Here are the board members

https://www.pepf.co.uk/about/

“Independent” Labour-Supporting Private School Report’s Links to Corbyn and Labour

 

https://order-order.com/2024/06/27/independent-labour-supporting-private-school-reports-links-to-corbyn-and-labour/

[The Cyclist]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Labour doing what is right.

 

Labour and more specifically, it's leaders rarely do what is right.

 

Here is your beloved Guardian

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/31/senior-labour-figures-urged-tony-blair-to-delay-arrival-of-eu-citizens-in-uk

 

And the damage that will be caused with this VAT raid is just 1 of the wrong decisions that the current Labour Party have undertaken.

 

Likewise

 

Raising employer NI contributions whilst lowering the NI threshold to £5000
 

Part time workers will be hitting the scrapheap starting next week and full time workers will start hitting the scrapheap from April.

 

Lets not forget the £800 million a year in perpetuity for surrendering the Chagos Islands.  Labour and the Tottenham Turnips mentalism at its finest.

[RayC]

3 hours ago, James105 said:

 

I think that some people are so tribal they will support anything this clown show of a government introduces.  If they decide to "close the tax loophole" on children being exempt from tax on their pocket money I'm sure you will be on here justifying why its a good thing to raise much needed government revenue which just gets spaffed away on carbon capture, foreign climate aid, foreign terrorist aid, foreign aid etc. 

 

😂 Talk about pot calling the kettle black!!

 

This Labour government could announce that they've found a cure for cancer, discovered a way to keep the UK's temperature at a balmy 25° all year round with no side effects, found a way to turn lead into gold, etc, etc and there's no doubt that you'd still be on here complaining that the world's not yet perfect and that it's all the fault of the Labour government.

[jayboy]

53 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Labour doing what is right.

 

Wrong.It's a spiteful immoral policy which fails to achieve its very modest financial objectives.

 

55 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

On this particular issue it’s clear the wider public agree.

 

It's not clear at all (You provided a tainted source as your proof) but in any case that's not the issue.

58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I suspect many don’t like the idea of people buying advantage over their own children

 

For most people, except leftist zealots, one of the purposes of life is to struggle to obtain a better future for their children.That's why rich middle class parents tend to buy houses in excellent state schools' catchment areas.

 

What else do you want to ban to ensure equality for all - parental attention, reading habits, domestic stability, overseas holidays, extra tuition, excellent genes etc etc? All the things that give middle class children advantages in life? Here's an idea.Instead of spiteful attacks on excellent independent schools, how about encouraging co-operation between the two sectors and above all improving state schools.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, jayboy said:

 

Wrong.It's a spiteful immoral policy which fails to achieve its very modest financial objectives.

 

 

It's not clear at all (You provided a tainted source as your proof) but in any case that's not the issue.

 

For most people, except leftist zealots, one of the purposes of life is to struggle to obtain a better future for their children.That's why rich middle class parents tend to buy houses in excellent state schools' catchment areas.

 

What else do you want to ban to ensure equality for all - parental attention, reading habits, domestic stability, overseas holidays, extra tuition, excellent genes etc etc? All the things that give middle class children advantages in life? Here's an idea.Instead of spiteful attacks on excellent independent schools, how about encouraging co-operation between the two sectors and above all improving state schools.

You might not like my source, but at least I provided one.

 

Here’s a better idea, increase funding to state schools - Labour are on it.

[RayC]

14 hours ago, jayboy said:

 

Every single one - repeat every single one - of the top public schools (ie any independent school that one has heard of) has charitable status.These are the well known schools that Labour hates - Eton, Harrow, Winchester etc.These are the schools that have wealth and influence.These are the schools that will cope with the government's vandalism.The smaller obscurer schools will suffer the most, the ones that educate the children of the struggling middle class.

 

 

It's class warfare and anything these cretins believe to be "posh" is the target of their envy and nastiness.The Government hates the middle class, hates ambition, hates aspiration and middle class people who want the best for their children.To be fair, I don't think Starmer thinks this but being a weak man, he sees this VAT vandalism as red meat to be thrown to the left.

 

Perhaps there is a case for looking the criteria governing the charitable status of schools but that's another discussion.

 

If it were 'class warfare' as you suggest then surely the elite public schools would be the first target? However, you state - correctly imo - that these elite schools will cope with this increase in costs.

 

The average cost of sending a child to an independent day school is +/-£18k pa; the average cost for boarders is +/-£42k pa. To afford to pay this sort of money over 6 - 12 years must mean that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the parents are earning significantly more than the national median income of £37k before tax.

 

I can only repeat again what I have said on many occasions previously. Parents should be free to pay for their children's education if they so wish. However, I see absolutely no reason why this group of parents should benefit from a tax loophole and, effectively be subsided by poorer parents for whom educating their kids privately is not an option.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/29/2024 at 7:37 PM, James105 said:

 

I presume on that basis you are in favour of University students being forced to pay VAT as well then?  Or do you approve of exemptions being made for certain things... like education for example?  

Ooh, that's gotta hurt.

 

Well said.

[James105]

55 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

😂 Talk about pot calling the kettle black!!

 

This Labour government could announce that they've found a cure for cancer, discovered a way to keep the UK's temperature at a balmy 25° all year round with no side effects, found a way to turn lead into gold, etc, etc and there's no doubt that you'd still be on here complaining that the world's not yet perfect and that it's all the fault of the Labour government.

 

I think this is what is known as a "straw man" argument with zero basis in fact.   I am only tribalistic about my football team and if Labour actually did anything good I would for sure applaud them for it.   Have they done anything good though? No.  Are they going to pretty much destroy the country economically and culturally on the current trajectory?  Probably.   

 

I have never seen a more calamitous start to a government than these clowns have managed to do starting almost on day one after promising to "clean up" parliament only to get caught with their fat fingers in Lord Allis cookie jar.   It has gone drastically downhill since that moronic start.  

 

Even the most tribalistic football fans are capable of criticizing their football teams if they are not playing well, but for some reason that doesn't seem to apply to people who support a political party in the same way.  

[scottiejohn]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

This Labour government could announce that they've found a cure for cancer, discovered a way to keep the UK's temperature at a balmy 25° all year round with no side effects, found a way to turn lead into gold, etc, etc

They would have said that in the lead in to the election but even they realised that they would not be believed.  That is why they went with the lies/misinformation that they used!

[jayboy]

58 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Perhaps there is a case for looking the criteria governing the charitable status of schools but that's another discussion.

 

If it were 'class warfare' as you suggest then surely the elite public schools would be the first target? However, you state - correctly imo - that these elite schools will cope with this increase in costs.

 

The average cost of sending a child to an independent day school is +/-£18k pa; the average cost for boarders is +/-£42k pa. To afford to pay this sort of money over 6 - 12 years must mean that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the parents are earning significantly more than the national median income of £37k before tax.

 

I can only repeat again what I have said on many occasions previously. Parents should be free to pay for their children's education if they so wish. However, I see absolutely no reason why this group of parents should benefit from a tax loophole and, effectively be subsided by poorer parents for whom educating their kids privately is not an option.

 

Ending charitable status was on the Labour agenda but was dropped - too difficult and in breach of law.Also politically toxic.

 

Labour's ideal would be to smash the famous schools but these are too financially robust.Therefore they are concentrating on the smaller provincial schools where they can inflict most stress and pain.

 

Yes parents with children in the independent system tend to be better off than average.Not sure of your point.

 

You have become confused on the tax aspect.There is no loophole because education has never been taxed.It is the parents of independent school children who are providing the subsidy, by paying for a state education they do not utilise.In some countries the state reimburses parents for this very reason.

[scottiejohn]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Here’s a better idea, increase funding to state schools - Labour are on it.

They are going to have to do that anyway because of the closure of Public schools due to their cack handed VAT!

[ukrules]

On 12/28/2024 at 6:19 PM, RayC said:

However, why should these companies - or their customers (the parents) - be exempted from paying VAT on the provision of these services when profit generating companies in other sectors are not?

 

Exactly, why not introduce VAT on all food and other VAT exempt items, that'll raise lots of extra funds.

It's only fair after all, isn't it?

 

[richard_smith237]

4 hours ago, RayC said:

They could send their kids to a state school if they wanted to. It is their choice to go private.

 

 

The issue lies in preference - most parents would not willingly choose state schools over private schools. Grammar schools, where the state covers the fees, present another option; however, they admit only a select few, typically the top 10% of applicants, based on performance in the 11+ entrance exams.

 

Why, then, do parents favour grammar schools over state schools? The answer is evident: state schools simply do not match the standard of education offered by grammar schools.

 

Interestingly, the existence of grammar schools does not seem to attract criticism or provoke concerns about their impact on state schools. So why is there such contention surrounding private schools? The reality is clear - there is nothing inherently wrong with private schools. The opposition often boils down to financial motivations, and thinly veiled moral indifference. 

 

 

4 hours ago, RayC said:

Spin it any way you want, this is a policy which closes a tax loophole and raises money for the Exchequer to spend on public services.

 

So it is a money grab !...    this government is now taking educational opportunity away from Children to fill the gaps. 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

They are going to have to do that anyway because of the closure of Public schools due to their cack handed VAT!

Labour are investing in state schools because they believe in providing a good state education for all children, regardless of the circumstances into which they were born.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

The issue lies in preference - most parents would not willingly choose state schools over private schools. Grammar schools, where the state covers the fees, present another option; however, they admit only a select few, typically the top 10% of applicants, based on performance in the 11+ entrance exams.

 

Why, then, do parents favour grammar schools over state schools? The answer is evident: state schools simply do not match the standard of education offered by grammar schools.

 

Interestingly, the existence of grammar schools does not seem to attract criticism or provoke concerns about their impact on state schools. So why is there such contention surrounding private schools? The reality is clear - there is nothing inherently wrong with private schools. The opposition often boils down to financial motivations, and thinly veiled moral indifference. 

 

 

 

So it is a money grab !...    this government is now taking educational opportunity away from Children to fill the gaps. 

Firstly can you provide some evidence of what ‘most parents would not willingly choose’?

 

Are you mixing up grammar schools and private schools?

 

 

[RayC]

15 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Education as a Public Good

Education is often viewed as a public good with significant societal benefits, such as fostering a more educated workforce, promoting equality of opportunity, and enhancing civic participation.

Lower VAT rates on private educational services can make higher quality education more accessible.

 

Yes, education is a public good which is a reason in itself why it should be able to everyone.

 

The benefits claimed are no justification for private education as they apply equally to state-funded education.

 

Imo the fact that one has to pay for "highly quality education" is an argument against, rather than, for it.

 

15 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Encouraging Investment in Education

A reduced VAT rate can incentivise consumers to invest in their or their children's education, which can have long-term economic and social benefits.

Suppliers of educational services may also be encouraged to expand or improve their offerings, knowing that their services are more affordable to consumers.

 

There is a large body of evidence to suggest that individuals acquire economic and social benefits from private education, less so that society as a whole does.

 

I have no idea what the justification for the second paragraph might be.

 

15 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Reducing Inequality

Having no VAT on educational services can help reduce financial barriers for families who may otherwise struggle to afford private education.The no VAT policy supports the principle of equal access to education, even in contexts where public education options are limited or less desirable - all the VAT does is ensure the wealthier continue to have access to higher standards of education while those on the 'borderline' of affordability do not. 

 

All the evidence suggests the exact opposite i.e. that inequality in society is increased due to private education

 

15 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Alignment with Exemptions for Public Education

Many countries already exempt or apply reduced VAT rates to public educational services (see next further comment below in another post). Extending similar benefits to private education ensures a level playing field across the EU and recognises the role of private providers in meeting educational needs.

 

Irrelevant given that we are no longer in the EU.

 

15 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Encouraging Diversity and Choice

By lowering VAT, governments can promote diversity in educational offerings, allowing consumers to choose services that best meet their needs, whether public or private.

This approach respects individual preferences and fosters innovation and competition in the education sector.

 

The choice to 'go private' or not. OK. Fine. And?

 

Why should private education be more diverse than public? Moreover, if this is true why is it a benefit? Surely all children should have the same opportunities?

 

 

15 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Long-Term Economic Benefits

Education drives economic growth by improving skills and productivity. Lower VAT rates on educational services can be seen as an investment in human capital, which yields returns in terms of higher income and tax revenue in the future.

 

The first sentence applies equally to state funded education.

 

Regarding the rest: Again for the individual perhaps. Not necessarily for society as a whole.

 

15 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Aggregate Result Mathematics

If 10,000 students leave private school for state schools, will 10,000 (or more students from state schools) achieve the same grades ?... Will there be an overall improvement in education (demonstrable in improved grades) ?

Or, will there be no difference at all, and we have just potentially lost 10,000 high performers due to a lower standard of education ?

 

 

What a bizarre title. Who knows is the answer to all three questions although I very much doubt that all 10,000 students will be affected one way or the other.

[The Cyclist]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Labour are investing in state schools because they believe in providing a good state education for all children, regardless of the circumstances into which they were born.

 

 

 

This investment you mean ?
 

Quote

The chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the core schools budget would increase by £2.3 billion next year. However, £1 billion is specifically for high-needs.

 

Quote

The government has also said the £1.3 billion would “continue to fully fund this summer’s 5.5 per cent pay award for teachers, and help cover pay awards in 2025-26”.

 

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/labours-first-budget-after-the-dust-has-settled-heres-what-we-know/

 

We have a very different viewpoint on what investing in State Schools actually means.

 

Perhaps you could explain what the extra £2.3 Billion allocated to education ( covering only 2 things ) is  going to do for this ?
 

Its from your favourite Guardian 😀😀

 

Quote

More than 1.5 million children are studying in dilapidated school buildings, a Guardian investigation has found, with years of underinvestment leaving England’s public infrastructure in a crumbling state.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/27/revealed-children-in-england-studying-in-unfit-school-buildings-crumbling-infrastructure

 

It would appear that they have invested £1 Billion in a small segment of State School pupils and £1.3 Billion in pay rises.

 

 

[RayC]

15 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Following on for the above comment....

 

In Europe, most countries exempt private education from VAT, recognising its role in society and aligning with the principle of supporting educational services.

 

Private education is generally not subject to VAT in... 

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece (after revoking its VAT on private education in 2015), Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden

 

These countries typically classify private education as a public good or essential service, aligning its tax treatment with that of public education, which is also exempt from VAT. 

 

In Europe, only a few countries apply VAT or equivalent taxes to private education services. These countries usually do so under specific conditions or for particular types of private education. 

Countries That Tax Private Education:

- United Kingdom (as of Jan 2025)

- Greece Introduced a 23% VAT on private education in 2015 during austerity measures, this tax was later revoked as it was disaster. 

- Ireland - Some private education services, particularly non-essential courses or commercial training, are subject 

- Switzerland - taxes some private educational services if they do not fall under exemptions for compulsory schooling or vocational education.

- Norway - Certain specialised or private education services, particularly commercial training programs, are subject to VAT.

 

 

Thus: the question has to be asked - If the vast majority of the EU identifies that taxing private education is fundamentally flawed, why does the UK Labour government see it differently ????

 

 

 

I don't know about each and every country mentioned and lack the time and, frankly, inclination to research them further. 

 

However, I do have some knowledge of the Belgian system - albeit based on the situation in the noughties and 2010s - and would make the following points:

 

1. Private education forms a very small proportion of the education system. Generally speaking, the independent schools are geared towards the needs of transient ex-pat executives who want their children to follow their a curriculum consistent with their home country e.g. the American school follows a US high school curriculum, the British school teaches a GCSE curriculum, etc. These curricula are obviously not available in a Belgian state school.

 

2. VAT is payable by commercial educational providers in Belgium 

 

More generally, the European Commission has launched proceedings against Germany and Poland - presumably test cases? - about VAT exemptions for private education providers.

 

Maybe the EU is about to change direction?

[Bkk Brian]

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It seems the wider public back Labour in this:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/dec/31/labours-private-school-tax-plan-strongly-backed-by-public-poll-shows

 

This has got to be one of the most bias polls ever created. Book marked for future reference.

 

The board members 

 

Just one example

Jess is a journalist. Her work on SEND provision, small failing private schools and off-rolling has generated national coverage. Jess has reported for The Guardian, Al Jazeera and The Big Issue

 

https://www.pepf.co.uk/about/

[Bkk Brian]

6 hours ago, RayC said:

 

They could send their kids to a state school if they wanted to. It is their choice to go private.

 

Spin it any way you want, this is a policy which closes a tax loophole and raises money for the Exchequer to spend on public services.

Callous, what about SEND children where state schools do not have sufficient provision. There's been enough links to this already and you still ignore it.

[RayC]

6 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Really ?
 

Looking to recruit an additional 6500 Teachers, which apparently equates to 1 teacher for every 3 schools. That of course is ignoring the current levels of understaffing in schools.

 

The recruitment of 6500 teachers is a separate goal (largely) unrelated to the imposition of VAT on private schools. 

 

6 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

The high end of the estimate for pupils being taken out of private school is 90,000 by the end of the current Ecication year.

 

A very large % of them are what are deemed SEND pupils, which State schools cannot accomodate, so councils will have to pay the fees to send tham back to the same school they have just left.

 

Tell me again, when you look at all the component factors together, rather than individually, that it is not going to make much of a difference.

 

Whether you look at the components individually or in totality, the answer (of sorts) is once again provided by the IFS: The effect(s) of this change are difficult to predict and will only become clear in the medium to long term.

 

Estimates vary.

 

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/independent-schools-proposed-vat-changes/

 

(Note: I can't claim to have read much of this report)

 

6 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Really ?
 

We are on track to borrow close to £200 Billion in the current financial year. Borrowing even more to ensure that debt is serviced, does not seem like a good plan to me. In fact, it seems rather idiotic.

 

The more the debt servicing costs rise, the less to spend on Public Services. Cannot have it both ways.

 

Yes, you can. They are not mutually exclusive. 

 

In any event, November 2024 figures show that borrowing was the lowest for that month since 2021 and that interest paid was the lowest since November 2019. This suggests that borrowing is either 1) under control or 2) it hasn't been under control for the past 3 - 5 years.

 

6 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

The UK Government has a finite amount of money that it can raise in taxation. The more you borrow, the higher debt servicing costs rise, the less you have to spend on Public Services.

 

The previous Labour Government got around this problem by doing 3 things.

 

1. Raiding Pension funds twice

 

2. Selling half the Gold Reserves.

 

3. PFI on steroids. Which will not be paid off until 2050.

 

The current Labour Government do not have the first  2 of those options available to them.

 

So any public expenditure either comes from PFI on steroids or a massive increase in borrowing.

 

 

 

I still don't understand what point you trying to make - or more specifically what conclusion(s) you have arrived at. Are you suggesting that the current level of borrowing is unsustainable? That the UK is about to default on its' repayments?

 

I also disagree with two of your assumptions. There may be well be a point where an increase in the marginal rate of taxation ceases to increase the amount of revenue generated. However, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that point has been reached in the UK now. By any number of criteria e.g. marginal/ absolute tax rates, etc. the UK is below the majority of the G7 nations and the vast majority of EU members in terms of the tax burden imposed on its' residents. If Reeves wants to increase tax, she has plenty of scope to do so. Whether tax rises are necessary and/or desirable now are two completely different questions.

 

Secondly, I also disagree with your contention that, "The more you borrow, the higher debt servicing costs rise, the less you have to spend on Public Services". Firstly, this statement takes no account of interest rates. If they fall then the cost of servicing the debt MAY also fall. Secondly, notwithstanding the effect of interest rates, as things currently stand, there is no reason why Reeves could not borrow more to finance public sector spending. There is obviously a point where the markets would become jittery and this would become more difficult, but there is no reason to suppose that point has been reached. Once again, whether increased borrowing is necessary and/or desirable is a totally different question.

[The Cyclist]

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

The recruitment of 6500 teachers is a separate goal (largely) unrelated to the imposition of VAT on private schools. 

 

A goal that they will miss

 

Just like the will miss the goal of 1.5 million new homes over the next 5 years.

 

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

Whether you look at the components individually or in totality, the answer (of sorts) is once again provided by the IFS: The effect(s) of this change are difficult to predict and will only become clear in the medium to long term.

 

The answer will become clear between now and the start of the next years school year.

 

Any projections / forecasts between those 2 points is nothing more than an opinion.

 

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

In any event, November 2024 figures show that borrowing was the lowest for that month since 2021

 

Which means nothing. The proof in the pudding will be the final borrowing figures for financial year april 2025 - April 2025. Which is tracking towards £200 Billion.

 

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

Secondly, I also disagree with your contention that, "The more you borrow, the higher debt servicing costs rise, the less you have to spend on Public Services". Firstly, this statement takes no account of interest rates. If they fall then the cost of servicing the debt MAY also fall.

 

Interest rates have no bearing on the majority of UK government debt. The 10, 5 & 2 year gilt rates dictate the majority of UK Government debt servicing costs.

 

Which is why I keep posting the 10 year gilt price. Which is used as the benchmark for calculating debt servicing costs.

 

Perhaps less posting, more researching might be in order.

[RayC]

6 hours ago, jayboy said:

 

Your rather crass comment about parents choice probably reflects the government position.They don't care about these children and hate the idea of private education and are motivated by class envy ( to be fair usually chippy lower middle class rather than working class).

 

It is not a crass comment, simply a truism.

 

You have your opinion, I have mine. I doubt that either of us is going to convince the other 

 

6 hours ago, jayboy said:

 

There is no tax loophole.Education has never been taxed.

 

You're correct. I used the wrong term. Nevertheless, my point remains the same.

 

6 hours ago, jayboy said:

It is unlikely there will be significant net funds raised.In any case any funds raised are fungible and will go into the Exchequer pot.They will be not be ring fenced and may as well end up in funding more public sector pay increases.

 

As you say, the monies raised will not be 'ring fenced'. Why should they be? 

 

As I said elsewhere, the effects of this change are unknown and estimates - whether low or high - rest on even more tenuous than usual.

[The Cyclist]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

As you say, the monies raised will not be 'ring fenced'. Why should they be? 

 

Because according to Labour, the VAT is being imposed to fund State Schools.

 

The reason it has not been ringfenced, is that they have no idea if it will raise any money.

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

I don't know about each and every country mentioned and lack the time and, frankly, inclination to research them further. 

 

However, I do have some knowledge of the Belgian system - albeit based on the situation in the noughties and 2010s - and would make the following points:

 

1. Private education forms a very small proportion of the education system. Generally speaking, the independent schools are geared towards the needs of transient ex-pat executives who want their children to follow their a curriculum consistent with their home country e.g. the American school follows a US high school curriculum, the British school teaches a GCSE curriculum, etc. These curricula are obviously not available in a Belgian state school.

 

Incorrect - in Belgium: 

Primary Education: Approximately 54.18% of students were enrolled in private primary schools as of 2019.

Secondary Education: In 2022, about 59.21% of students attended private secondary schools.

 

Regarding General Population Demographics (info is a snapshot from once city).

- Belgian Nationals with Belgian Background: Approximately 48.48%

- Belgian Nationals with Foreign Background: About 34.76%

- Non-Belgian Residents: Around 15.88%

 

As your comment suggest - this aligns with your comment that a significant proportion of non-Belgians are in Private Schools. 

 

However, your point is a moot distraction - Tax is not applied to the private schools. 

 

1 hour ago, RayC said:

2. VAT is payable by commercial educational providers in Belgium 

 

More generally, the European Commission has launched proceedings against Germany and Poland - presumably test cases? - about VAT exemptions for private education providers.

 

Maybe the EU is about to change direction?

 

Using the Belgium example:  Commercial Education Providers are:

- Private tutoring companies

- Online learning platforms offering subscription-based or paid courses (e.g., for coding, business skills, etc.)

- Institutes providing specialised training (culinary schools, driving schools, or IT certification programs)

- For-profit international schools

 

Not 'Private Schools'...

 

-----

 

Regarding, Germany and Poland, they are being used as 'test cases' as they deviate from EU VAT rules by applying exemptions for private education providers too broadly. They extend exemptions to for-profit, commercial entities and activities not strictly defined as public-interest education under the EU VAT Directive. 

 

Again, this is about 'commercial providers' (similar to those listed above) and not specifically Private Schools themselves.