Labour Facing High Court Legal Challenge

[naomi24]

//Labour’s proposal to impose VAT on private school fees from January is facing a High Court legal challenge on grounds that it breaches human rights law.... The policy has already drawn significant criticism, and further legal claims related to military families and those attending faith schools may be forthcoming.  //

 

https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/labours-vat-on-private-school-fees-faces-high-court-challenge-over-human-rights-concerns/

 

Could that, together with the furore over the demise of winter fuel payments for most elderly people, see some furious back-pedalling from the government in the near future?

[nicebloke1]

Back pedalling. No

[Old_Geezer]

How can it possibly breach HR ? They're just getting a commercial concern to pay it's way. Something that should be chased up on many retail firms too. Sounds like a ECHR drop off situation to me.

[gulliver1]

Why is it that the wealthy think they are privileged people and should be exempt from paying taxes.?

[ToraToraTora]

As much as I'd enjoy them coming a cropper on this I can't see how not having VAT on a private education is possibly a violation of human rights.

[newmodarmy]

(Says a capitalist landlord who pretends to be a socialist)

Not read the article then gulliver? There are plenty of people with special needs that aren't catered for by state schools- that's the basis of this challenge from a small group.

[naomi24]

//Leaders of two of the biggest unions have added further pressure on the government over its plan to cut winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners in England and Wales.

Unite general secretary Sharon Graham told the BBC the government should "do a U-turn", while head of the PCS union Fran Heathcote said it was a "misstep" which needed to be "put right".//

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg5rl612n5o

 

[Untitled]

i doubt very much this will succeed. 

[newmodarmy]

I agree, untitled- I don't expect it succeed as it seems a tenouous argument. 

I don't feel stronglly on this issue but I do sense there's an element of envy in this, and there's an argument for saying there should be no VAT and maybe even  some sort of education voucher sworth a few £000 should be given per child as it saves the state the money -maybe £6000 a year-  that is given for each pupil in state schools.

[New Judge]

“They're just getting a commercial concern to pay it's way.”

That’s not the case with VAT at all OG.

Businesses are rarely affected greatly by the rate of VAT or its imposition because, in the main, they don’t pay it. It’s the end users of the products or services produced or provided by the businesses who pay the tax.

As is usual with Labour financial policies, it is ill thought out. The parents who send their children to fee-paying schools will have less money to spend. They might have spent the sum they now need to find to pay VAT on school fees on other goods and services that would probably have been subject to VAT and possibly excise duty. So the government would receive the money in the end, but just via a different route.

There are over 570,000 children in private education and this saves the Department for Education around £4.2bn. It is estimated that around 25% of private school pupils may have to be withdrawn from their schools and transfer to the State sector. This means the State education system - already under strain - will have to find places for around 145,000 children at a cost of around £7,600pa each  This will wipe out about two thirds of the £1.7bn the VAT imposition is forecast to raise.

There is no sound economic reason to impose VAT on private education. It will almost certainly end up costing more than it raises. It is a policy based simply on socialist ideology: not everyone can have it, so nobody should. If they do, they will be taxed for saving the government money.

I too believe this challenge will fail. Human Rights adjudication doesn’t tend to side with applicants who are self-sufficient and aspirational for themselves and their children.

[ToraToraTora]

judge: 2There is no sound economic reason to impose VAT on private education. It will almost certainly end up costing more than it raises. It is a policy based simply on socialist ideology: not everyone can have it, so nobody should. If they do, they will be taxed for saving the government money." - yes absolutely, socialist tax policy is more to do with punishing those with the temerity to prosper than it is about raising revenue.

[naomi24]

I think they just scrape money in from wherever they can regardless of the knock-on effects.  Their brains don't think that far ahead which is why they always leave the country in dire straits.  

[ToraToraTora]

13:50 perhaps but I think they just want to hurt people they don't like regardless of whether it's economically sound. "Those rich b'stards sending their kids to school" - what they don't realise is that there are a lot just about managing to send their kids to private schools.

[naomi24]

That too - although there are enough examples of hypocrisy.

[jourdain2]

In egalitarian France, parents told me that there is a certain amount of money allocated by the state per child for education.  This can be used in either state or independent schools it is up to the parent to decide.  Often, faith schools are chosen over the very secular state system. Seems fair enough to me. I assume this system hasn't changed, I've not heard if it has.

[Peter Pedant]

How can it possibly breach HR 

from the article - children with special educational needs ( like Prince Harry) would/might have to leave on account of cost and this wd be discriminatory

good luck with that one

[Peter Pedant]

I think they just scrape money in from wherever they can regardless of the knock-on effects.

no they dont want to tax priuction or consumption as it affects productivity ( which has to go up) - so you are left with the taxable non productives - Land, wealth, CGT IHT

so... someone has thoght abouot it

( this idea is not too unmimsy for AB is it?)

[Old_Geezer]

Then the government needs to run schools that can cater for special needs.  If the private sector can make it work, no reason the public sector can't. Government should already have that covered.

[Old_Geezer]

It's always the end user that pays.

[davebro3]

Is there special provision (payments) for service/diplomatic personnel serving abroad who put their children in boarding schools?

[Old_Geezer]

If only some can have it  then nobody should ? On the contrary that misses the point. Some can still have it, but fairly taxed like other service industries.

Whether it brings in more or less than it costs is pure speculation but whichever is the case the new system would be fairer as, why should some in effect get an unnecessary hand out from the public purse in the form of a tax exemption ? The government may need to up it's game re state schools though, and no bad thing. Although these days it seems to horrify everyone if the class sizes become the size that was the norm when I was at school.