Tories have had there chance Labour will be out again in 5 years unless they sort migration and a few other things It’s only words for votes then they back track on the promises they make in manifesto’s Always the way all off them Want to be a liar a cheat or a thief be a politician or a cop
I had the advantage of a Private education. A very good one. I was very lucky-my parents were not wealthy.
But to suggest that school fees should continue not to attract VAT is nonsense.
VAT exemption is meant for essentials. Anyone remember how long it took to accept that tampons were essentials?
Take food as an example. At a supermarket, most food is VAT-exempt. But if you go to a restaurant, or order a (hot) takeaway, that is a "luxury"-you pay VAT at the full rate.
Choosing to send someone to a private school is a choice. It is a luxury. It is a very good luxury. But it should attract VAT. Not be yet another tax-free perk for the wealthy.
Why is it the self-same people who bang on about "market forces" always ignore it when it comes to anything that may not suit them?
There are certainly arguments that it should be phased in gradually. To help schools, and parents of existing pupils, adjust. But I fail to see why wealthy people should get a tax break, and for poorer people to pay the taxes they do not.
I had the advantage of a Private education. A very good one. I was very lucky-my parents were not wealthy.
But to suggest that school fees should continue not to attract VAT is nonsense.
VAT exemption is meant for essentials. Anyone remember how long it took to accept that tampons were essentials?
Take food as an example. At a supermarket, most food is VAT-exempt. But if you go to a restaurant, or order a (hot) takeaway, that is a "luxury"-you pay VAT at the full rate.
Choosing to send someone to a private school is a choice. It is a luxury. It is a very good luxury. But it should attract VAT. Not be yet another tax-free perk for the wealthy.
Why is it the self-same people who bang on about "market forces" always ignore it when it comes to anything that may not suit them?
There are certainly arguments that it should be phased in gradually. To help schools, and parents of existing pupils, adjust. But I fail to see why wealthy people should get a tax break, and for poorer people to pay the taxes they do not.
This will surely not make any real difference to the overwhelming majority of the people that send their kids to private schools.
Suppose people are spending £10,000 a year on Private school fees.
About 40% are currently claiming that if that choice is changed to £12,000 or send kid to state school, that then state school will be the answer.
I do not believe that is true. For example, A levels are a 2 year thing. Few would change schools halfway through.
But Private schools-a lot of Private schools-think they may be about to go bust. Show me a business with fixed costs that could survive a 20% drop in turnover?
Suppose people are spending £10,000 a year on Private school fees.
About 40% are currently claiming that if that choice is changed to £12,000 or send kid to state school, that then state school will be the answer.
I do not believe that is true. For example, A levels are a 2 year thing. Few would change schools halfway through.
But Private schools-a lot of Private schools-think they may be about to go bust. Show me a business with fixed costs that could survive a 20% drop in turnover?
It is slightly more than that. To get a net 10k, you have to charge 12.5k including vat. I am not sure that this would result in a 20% drop in turnover. Less pupils may result in some cost savings. It may also encourage some of the schools to examine their costs. Many of those that send their kids to these schools are those that can easily afford a price increase.
Suppose people are spending £10,000 a year on Private school fees.
About 40% are currently claiming that if that choice is changed to £12,000 or send kid to state school, that then state school will be the answer.
I do not believe that is true. For example, A levels are a 2 year thing. Few would change schools halfway through.
But Private schools-a lot of Private schools-think they may be about to go bust. Show me a business with fixed costs that could survive a 20% drop in turnover?
It is slightly more than that. To get a net 10k, you have to charge 12.5k including vat. I am not sure that this would result in a 20% drop in turnover. Less pupils may result in some cost savings. It may also encourage some of the schools to examine their costs. Many of those that send their kids to these schools are those that can easily afford a price increase.
I really, genuinely, wish that were true. But it makes some assumptions, for example:-
1. Schools have to organise budgets. Most of that is fixed costs. You cannot cut buildings. Teachers. Even stuff that state schools can, such as playing fields. 2. When I am referring to turnover, obviously I am referring to what the School gets to keep 3. The schools that survive will not be the "better" ones. It will be the ones with more cash reserves, that can scoop up pupils from those schools that do not 4. In my experience, people who "can" afford an increase have got to that point by being extremely good at not paying money where they feel they do not have to
Suppose people are spending £10,000 a year on Private school fees.
About 40% are currently claiming that if that choice is changed to £12,000 or send kid to state school, that then state school will be the answer.
I do not believe that is true. For example, A levels are a 2 year thing. Few would change schools halfway through.
But Private schools-a lot of Private schools-think they may be about to go bust. Show me a business with fixed costs that could survive a 20% drop in turnover?
It is slightly more than that. To get a net 10k, you have to charge 12.5k including vat. I am not sure that this would result in a 20% drop in turnover. Less pupils may result in some cost savings. It may also encourage some of the schools to examine their costs. Many of those that send their kids to these schools are those that can easily afford a price increase.
I really, genuinely, wish that were true. But it makes some assumptions, for example:-
1. Schools have to organise budgets. Most of that is fixed costs. You cannot cut buildings. Teachers. Even stuff that state schools can, such as playing fields. 2. When I am referring to turnover, obviously I am referring to what the School gets to keep 3. The schools that survive will not be the "better" ones. It will be the ones with more cash reserves, that can scoop up pupils from those schools that do not 4. In my experience, people who "can" afford an increase have got to that point by being extremely good at not paying money where they feel they do not have to
So is there an argument for why they should be zero rated in the first place? The gap between the haves and the have nots seems to be widening. The number of very rich people seems to have dramatically increased since the advent of the internet.
Suppose people are spending £10,000 a year on Private school fees.
About 40% are currently claiming that if that choice is changed to £12,000 or send kid to state school, that then state school will be the answer.
I do not believe that is true. For example, A levels are a 2 year thing. Few would change schools halfway through.
But Private schools-a lot of Private schools-think they may be about to go bust. Show me a business with fixed costs that could survive a 20% drop in turnover?
It is slightly more than that. To get a net 10k, you have to charge 12.5k including vat. I am not sure that this would result in a 20% drop in turnover. Less pupils may result in some cost savings. It may also encourage some of the schools to examine their costs. Many of those that send their kids to these schools are those that can easily afford a price increase.
I really, genuinely, wish that were true. But it makes some assumptions, for example:-
1. Schools have to organise budgets. Most of that is fixed costs. You cannot cut buildings. Teachers. Even stuff that state schools can, such as playing fields. 2. When I am referring to turnover, obviously I am referring to what the School gets to keep 3. The schools that survive will not be the "better" ones. It will be the ones with more cash reserves, that can scoop up pupils from those schools that do not 4. In my experience, people who "can" afford an increase have got to that point by being extremely good at not paying money where they feel they do not have to
Why do you think that Ed Davey persists in making a complete ar5ehole of himself, and deludes himself into thinking it is likely to endear himself to voters?
Suppose people are spending £10,000 a year on Private school fees.
About 40% are currently claiming that if that choice is changed to £12,000 or send kid to state school, that then state school will be the answer.
I do not believe that is true. For example, A levels are a 2 year thing. Few would change schools halfway through.
But Private schools-a lot of Private schools-think they may be about to go bust. Show me a business with fixed costs that could survive a 20% drop in turnover?
It is slightly more than that. To get a net 10k, you have to charge 12.5k including vat. I am not sure that this would result in a 20% drop in turnover. Less pupils may result in some cost savings. It may also encourage some of the schools to examine their costs. Many of those that send their kids to these schools are those that can easily afford a price increase.
I really, genuinely, wish that were true. But it makes some assumptions, for example:-
1. Schools have to organise budgets. Most of that is fixed costs. You cannot cut buildings. Teachers. Even stuff that state schools can, such as playing fields. 2. When I am referring to turnover, obviously I am referring to what the School gets to keep 3. The schools that survive will not be the "better" ones. It will be the ones with more cash reserves, that can scoop up pupils from those schools that do not 4. In my experience, people who "can" afford an increase have got to that point by being extremely good at not paying money where they feel they do not have to
So is there an argument for why they should be zero rated in the first place? The gap between the haves and the have nots seems to be widening. The number of very rich people seems to have dramatically increased since the advent of the internet.
The simple answer is that Private Schools have evolved over time.
Using my old school as an example, it started out offering poor kids in Stepney an education when no-one else would. Hence Charitable status, and no Taxation.
Then Schools retained Charitable status when, perhaps, some should and some should not. Schools used to do a lot more Charitable stuff than they do today.
Then the Rules were changed in relation to Charitable status. Meaning that it was possible to change rules about VAT on school fees.
Suppose people are spending £10,000 a year on Private school fees.
About 40% are currently claiming that if that choice is changed to £12,000 or send kid to state school, that then state school will be the answer.
I do not believe that is true. For example, A levels are a 2 year thing. Few would change schools halfway through.
But Private schools-a lot of Private schools-think they may be about to go bust. Show me a business with fixed costs that could survive a 20% drop in turnover?
Long time since you went to school Phil. I believe it's more like £10k a term these days.
Suppose people are spending £10,000 a year on Private school fees.
About 40% are currently claiming that if that choice is changed to £12,000 or send kid to state school, that then state school will be the answer.
I do not believe that is true. For example, A levels are a 2 year thing. Few would change schools halfway through.
But Private schools-a lot of Private schools-think they may be about to go bust. Show me a business with fixed costs that could survive a 20% drop in turnover?
Long time since you went to school Phil. I believe it's more like £10k a term these days.
It was a long time ago. A very long time ago. My plea in mitigation is as follows:-
1. I was a free place boy; and 2. I was trying to use really simple numbers to help people who had a Comprehensive education
Suppose people are spending £10,000 a year on Private school fees.
About 40% are currently claiming that if that choice is changed to £12,000 or send kid to state school, that then state school will be the answer.
I do not believe that is true. For example, A levels are a 2 year thing. Few would change schools halfway through.
But Private schools-a lot of Private schools-think they may be about to go bust. Show me a business with fixed costs that could survive a 20% drop in turnover?
Long time since you went to school Phil. I believe it's more like £10k a term these days.
It was a long time ago. A very long time ago. My plea in mitigation is as follows:-
1. I was a free place boy; and 2. I was trying to use really simple numbers to help people who had a Comprehensive education
I see.
All I can say is that I would not like to be paying "D1ck in the Pig" school prices these days with or without VAT.
Suppose people are spending £10,000 a year on Private school fees.
About 40% are currently claiming that if that choice is changed to £12,000 or send kid to state school, that then state school will be the answer.
I do not believe that is true. For example, A levels are a 2 year thing. Few would change schools halfway through.
But Private schools-a lot of Private schools-think they may be about to go bust. Show me a business with fixed costs that could survive a 20% drop in turnover?
Long time since you went to school Phil. I believe it's more like £10k a term these days.
It was a long time ago. A very long time ago. My plea in mitigation is as follows:-
1. I was a free place boy; and 2. I was trying to use really simple numbers to help people who had a Comprehensive education
I see.
All I can say is that I would not like to be paying "D1ck in the Pig" school prices these days with or without VAT.
Private Schools are like State schools. Some offer value for money. And some do not.
I think it only right and fair that VAT is charged. However, I do think it unfair that no credit at all is given in relation to the money saved by the state in not having to provide that education.
Suppose people are spending £10,000 a year on Private school fees.
About 40% are currently claiming that if that choice is changed to £12,000 or send kid to state school, that then state school will be the answer.
I do not believe that is true. For example, A levels are a 2 year thing. Few would change schools halfway through.
But Private schools-a lot of Private schools-think they may be about to go bust. Show me a business with fixed costs that could survive a 20% drop in turnover?
It is slightly more than that. To get a net 10k, you have to charge 12.5k including vat. I am not sure that this would result in a 20% drop in turnover. Less pupils may result in some cost savings. It may also encourage some of the schools to examine their costs. Many of those that send their kids to these schools are those that can easily afford a price increase.
I really, genuinely, wish that were true. But it makes some assumptions, for example:-
1. Schools have to organise budgets. Most of that is fixed costs. You cannot cut buildings. Teachers. Even stuff that state schools can, such as playing fields. 2. When I am referring to turnover, obviously I am referring to what the School gets to keep 3. The schools that survive will not be the "better" ones. It will be the ones with more cash reserves, that can scoop up pupils from those schools that do not 4. In my experience, people who "can" afford an increase have got to that point by being extremely good at not paying money where they feel they do not have to
Why do you think that Ed Davey persists in making a complete ar5ehole of himself, and deludes himself into thinking it is likely to endear himself to voters?
Ed Davey falls into lake five times while campaigning from paddleboard
Comments
Labour will be out again in 5 years unless they sort migration and a few other things
It’s only words for votes then they back track on the promises they make in manifesto’s
Always the way all off them
Want to be a liar a cheat or a thief be a politician or a cop
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/government-minister-says-some-british-muslims-do-not-support-uk-values/ar-BB1n7m1C?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=7aabf726d5934ce8a6444762902bd26d&ei=87#fullscreen
I had the advantage of a Private education. A very good one. I was very lucky-my parents were not wealthy.
But to suggest that school fees should continue not to attract VAT is nonsense.
VAT exemption is meant for essentials. Anyone remember how long it took to accept that tampons were essentials?
Take food as an example. At a supermarket, most food is VAT-exempt. But if you go to a restaurant, or order a (hot) takeaway, that is a "luxury"-you pay VAT at the full rate.
Choosing to send someone to a private school is a choice. It is a luxury. It is a very good luxury. But it should attract VAT. Not be yet another tax-free perk for the wealthy.
Why is it the self-same people who bang on about "market forces" always ignore it when it comes to anything that may not suit them?
There are certainly arguments that it should be phased in gradually. To help schools, and parents of existing pupils, adjust. But I fail to see why wealthy people should get a tax break, and for poorer people to pay the taxes they do not.
About 40% are currently claiming that if that choice is changed to £12,000 or send kid to state school, that then state school will be the answer.
I do not believe that is true. For example, A levels are a 2 year thing. Few would change schools halfway through.
But Private schools-a lot of Private schools-think they may be about to go bust. Show me a business with fixed costs that could survive a 20% drop in turnover?
To get a net 10k, you have to charge 12.5k including vat.
I am not sure that this would result in a 20% drop in turnover.
Less pupils may result in some cost savings.
It may also encourage some of the schools to examine their costs.
Many of those that send their kids to these schools are those that can easily afford a price increase.
1. Schools have to organise budgets. Most of that is fixed costs. You cannot cut buildings. Teachers. Even stuff that state schools can, such as playing fields.
2. When I am referring to turnover, obviously I am referring to what the School gets to keep
3. The schools that survive will not be the "better" ones. It will be the ones with more cash reserves, that can scoop up pupils from those schools that do not
4. In my experience, people who "can" afford an increase have got to that point by being extremely good at not paying money where they feel they do not have to
The gap between the haves and the have nots seems to be widening.
The number of very rich people seems to have dramatically increased since the advent of the internet.
Using my old school as an example, it started out offering poor kids in Stepney an education when no-one else would. Hence Charitable status, and no Taxation.
Then Schools retained Charitable status when, perhaps, some should and some should not. Schools used to do a lot more Charitable stuff than they do today.
Then the Rules were changed in relation to Charitable status. Meaning that it was possible to change rules about VAT on school fees.
And now VAT is about to be imposed
Long time since you went to school Phil. I believe it's more like £10k a term these days.
1. I was a free place boy; and
2. I was trying to use really simple numbers to help people who had a Comprehensive education
I see.
All I can say is that I would not like to be paying "D1ck in the Pig" school prices these days with or without VAT.
I think it only right and fair that VAT is charged. However, I do think it unfair that no credit at all is given in relation to the money saved by the state in not having to provide that education.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/national-service-chaos-as-surprise-tory-policy-descends-into-farce/ar-BB1n8PfG?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=fbd49242e4034e4b8d765b7ffb302c5b&ei=40#fullscreen
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/lib-dem-leader-falls-lake-103600850.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/tories-just-12-points-behind-labour-in-new-election-poll/ar-BB1nd59D?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=18c78c8caedb4a9eab784763b684e746&ei=16#fullscreen