Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Looks Like Keir Starmer Et Al. Have Overcooked Their Public School Goose...
20 Answers
Thank God ré diversity in our education
If it comes in, an extra 40k students in the state system - and will it crack.
Even more importantly, they may be facing an ECHR case in that trying to impose VAT would be in breach international law in terms of the right to education of parental choosing. They've been advised of this as of the early 1980s when Michael Foot-in-Mouth tried it on in 1983. This was then re-inforced by opinions from Law-Lords Lester and Pannick in 1987 and Lord Scarman in 1991.
I thoroughly agree the comment yesterday, also expressed in the DT from whence this came today, that this is not about raising tax, investment in the UK's educational base but in blatant socialist principles and, hey folk, bring on the super-majority as it's crapp like this policy that we will be facing.
Your view??
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DTCwordfan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
the philadelphia lawyers on twitter have been active in this area. apparently the argument rests on A2P1, which confers a right to start and run a private school (this was tested in court as long ago in 1976; "The Commission considers that it follows from the judgment ... in the Case of Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen ... that Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) guarantees the right to start and run a private school.")
however, what this doesn't confer is a right to state subsidy, which is what tax exemption effectively is. I suspect those advising the schools are straw-clutching.
"trying to impose VAT would be in breach international law in terms of the right to education of parental choosing."
If parents wanted a child to be educated at a school that was too expensive for them now, does the ECHR give them the right to demand to be given a place at that school at a fee they can afford?
Seems strange they may have a legal case since the right to pay for private education still exists. If the basis is cost then presumably all those who presently can't afford the cost also have a case that they can't get their right to private education for the grand cost of £0 a term.
What have American lawyers to do with UK law ?
International interest is no business of ours, which is another reason to shed support for the inadequate ECHR and sort our legal system out so it operates intelligently (unlike other nations, it may appear).
The point is, some people scrimp and save and sacrifice lots of things to educate their kids privately, and increasing the amount by a fifth will make it unaffordable. I know two such families, and they are far from rich and they have 'normal' jobs.
Why can't people accept it's not just the rich who educate their kids privately?
There will be thousands in a similar position and all it means is they'll have to send their kids to state schools adding further burden on an already overburdened system.
This is Labour reverting to type and hammering those they see as 'privileged', and frankly it's a bloody disgrace.
"....No private schools will be shutting."
That remains to be seen.
But there is no doubt that there are many people who send their children to private schools for whom a 20% increase will make it unaffordable. This means they will have to transfer them into the State system and that is already bursting at the seams.
There is simply no need for this policy. It is fairly common ground (apart from within the Labour Party) that it will gain nothing for the Exchequer. It is simply socialistt ideology: if it's not possible for everybody to have something then nobody can have it.
Many people strive to do he very best they can for their children and make considerable sacrifices to see them gain all the advantages they can. To charge them tax when they are reducing the burden on the State system is simply beyond the pale. But be prepared for this and a lot more (private healhcare will be next) because those of us who have lived under a proper Labour government know just what to expect.
"...VAT on public schools is hardly going to lose votes for Labour."
No it probably won't. But it might sway a few "don't knows" away from Labour. However, when considering the diehards, Labour has, as its leader, a man who says he would see a loved one suffer rather than pay for their healthcare. With that atitude (which I consider makes him either a liar or a lunatic) there's little hope.
// Who said anything about private schools shutting? //
The OP did. // If it comes in, an extra 40k students in the state system // [Not in private schools].
Why does 40k pupils transferring to the State system mean (necessarily) some private schools closing? There are more than 600,000 children in private education.
The need for it is fairness. Why should the private education system get tax breaks unavailable to all other businesses ?
As for increased pressure on the State school system, just increase class sizes. The state system will have more issues with getting rid of duff concrete than getting a small percentage increase in pupils.
"Why should the private education system get tax breaks unavailable to all other businesses ?"
The same tax breaks are available to suppliers of all manner of goods and services. For example, almost all financial services. So why should a millionaire be able to employ accountants to enable him to minimise his tax bill, without paying VAT on those services?
It's just the same old socialist dogma where they don't want people who do well and look after them and their own just because others can't.
And I put SKS squarely in the liar camp. I simply refuse to believe that a man of means would see a loved one suffer for ideological reasons. Worse, to expect people to believe his lie treats the electorate with disrespect.
"...why should a millionaire be able to employ accountants to enable him to minimise his tax bill, without paying VAT on those services ?"
I would say, OG, that there is a far stronger argument for charging VAT on the accountant's fees than there is for charging it on private school fees.
You questioned why the private education system should get tax breaks unavailable to all other businesses. But that tax break clearly is not unavailable to all other businesses. There are a whole host of them who are afforded it. - I've just chosen one to illustrate the point. Among many others are betting, gaming, lottery and bingo businesses. Others are the sale or charter of aircraft (including helicopters).
So the question really is, why has the Labour Party pledged to impose VAT on private school fees, when, as far as I can tell, it has no plans to do the same to any other businesses which enjoy the same concession?
The answer of course is simple - socialist ideology frowns on anybody who is willing to work hard so that they can pay for a service which socialism dictates that only the State should provide.
And mark my words, once the incoming Labour government gets its feet under the table and admits it needs more of other people's money than it is willing to admit (until next Friday) other targets (such as private healthcare) will come into the crosshairs.
1 to 20 of 20
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.