V.A.T, in school fees

Interesting answer.

ab a girls independent day school fairly near me charges £16000 a year from year 7-13. On top of that is uniform, lunches, travel, trips and any extra curricular activities such as music. Teachers ar independent schools are also members of the Teachers Pension Scheme which means that these schools don't have to worry about any pension risks like other 'businesses' as the Government underwrites it.

But back to the OP - I think the proposed policy is utter madness. Charitable status should be stripped from all independent schools and any money coming back into the Exchequer should be ring fenced for the benefit of all state schools - they could start on those schools that are in urgent need of repairs. In some areas, more free school meals might be relevant

Rigby, schools are so different, the boarding school here is well known but it isn't Eaton this is why one cost does not apply to all. There was a head of a small school interviewed a few days ago, her school fees are nine thousand .

I think this charging vat is wrong , doubt it would cause sleepless night for parents with children at Eaton but could for parents at that heads school.

The charitable status is so wrong and I sgree thst money could be used for school repairs and supplies, not feeding every child in every state school,

I agree with you Rigby46. I was doing a "back of an envelope" calculation about the primary school my son used to attend.

There are 210 pupils and I know that when my son was there, there were only three pupils who had free school meals. There might be more now and there might have been a few others, whose parents were really struggling. I know the three pupils in receipt of free school meals and none of them were starving.

If FSM were introduced for all pupils, the school would receive about £80,000 a year. Instead of subsidising pupils, most of whose parents could well afford to feed their children, the school could have employed extra teachers, teaching assistants, bought new books or loads of other things. The school is a voluntary aided C of E school, so the diocese pays for maintenance of the buildings. Better still, the money could be allocated to schools with far greater needs than that school.

ab yes I agree that there are many different types of independent schools so costs vary. But all the ones that have charitable status ( no idea if that's all?) should lose it IMO. I'd be interested to know if that would bring in more money to the Exchequer than charging VAT on fees. I live in a area with some very well known independents. The ones that have boarding facilities are, in particular, incredibly opulent in their facilities - theatres , concert halls, sports halls, swimming pools, cricket, tennis, rugby and large grounds and beautiful buildings. Their IT facilities and labs are incredible - it just seems wrong to me that their charitable status helps to fund these really amazing facilities thus denying tax revenue that could go to state schools for some real basics like enough books/ computers/teachers. My local MP and minor royals are regularly photographed in my local paper opening some new facility or other at one of the local independents.

Could somebody with knowledge of VAT please explain a couple of things?

Does charitable status mean that schools don't pay VAT on anything they buy - or is it no different from any VAT registered business?

Is the intention to charge VAT on the total fees? Would the parents of overseas students be able to claim an exemption, as they can with other tax-free purchases? I have no idea how that works.

Are there any other benefits (other than VAT) from being a charity rather than a commercial business?

I'm fairly clueless about how VAT works :-(

Nearly all independent schools have charitable status.

That's the point Rigby. Independent schools fall over themselves to attract pupils (especially from overseas) and they don't do it by offering brilliant teaching. If you look at their brochures, they are very keen to promote their facilities, so that the actual teaching is almost an add-on. I agree with you that these amazing facilities should not be subsidised by the taxpayer for the tiny percentage of pupils who attend them.

I think it s crackpot idea which will alienate voters the Labour Party needs to ever win an election. But I accept for Corbyn and many of his supporters losing an election is better than compromise, this means no compromise no hope for the homeless, the vunerable, I would choose compromise and helping the homeless and the vunerable,

Just as Blair did, he compromised, we got a better NHS, education improved, the minimum wage, sure start, human rights act, tax credits etc. Didn't damage him with middle England , he won three elections. It has to be inclusive not exclusive , not give all to the jams and sod the vunerable and not sod the jams and give to the vunerable, the jams vote too.

dd I was making the assumption that VAT was not charged in general on fees for education - in any event, the schools with charitable status get a variety of tax breaks including very reduced business rates and some income tax concessions. Don't you just love the fact that the children of incredibly rich British people and the children of overseas dictators/oligarchs/billionaires benefit from these advantages through the fees being less that they would otherwise be? Oh and as for the facilities, I forgot 18 hole golf courses and the stables - silly me

If it's the school I'm thinking of, trisher, I did supply there for a few weeks in the late 1980s, when we moved back to Hull.
I agree that he did really well for himself.
Not surprised you know where to find wooden spoons in bulk, Annie.

You also support those who think it's okay to be filthy rich, Annie.
Maybe that's the big difference. Some of us want a fairer society.

Private day schools where we live are about £13,000 a year but you get reductions for paying in advance and reductions too for siblings. These schools have excellent uniform shops with affordable previously owned clothing so it is not always expensive to kit the pupils out.

I think you've justified what was said earlier, someone's expensive is someone else's cheap.
Many people don't earn anything like that. Lots of people can't save anything like that after living expenses.

Jen, I accept there has always the filthy rich, if you believe you and Corbyn will stamp them out you need to get into the real world , it ain't going to I accept dies not mean I think it right or fair, but Jen , guess what - life isn't always fair , perhaps the cushioned think differently though.

Corbyn is an example, very middle class, no shortage of money, wife doesn't suit? Get shot of her and move on the the next , be a pacifist but have friends who kill . Join apolitical party and betray the members, no respect for fellow workers, if they were bombed invite the guilty for tea in the same building as those who survived the bomb. This man doesn't create peace he creates hatred and envy

I never said it was cheap, DS and DIL both work and could not afford the fees.

voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/04/07/labours-new-free-school-meals-policy-is-a-huge-boost-for-the-party-and-for-pupils/

In a yougov poll, 52% supported the idea.
52%. Where have I heard that before?

harrigran The average day school fees are just over £16,000. The second rate one in my town charges just under £19,000 a year for day pupils. At the risk of repeating myself, 80% of all households with children at independent schools have an income above £50,000,which places them in the highest earning 10%. Advance payment is a tax scam. Second hand clothing might save a bit, but it's nothing compared with the fees and extra charges for music lessons, etc.

I know it's intuitive to think that providing free school meals is the best way to ensure that all children are well-fed, but it isn't. It's an ineffective use of scarce resources and needs further investigation, even according to the report the Labour Party has cited. At worst,it risks diverting money from those who really do need some help. I'm not surprised a YouGov poll would support it. Few people would turn down anything free, but I doubt if the implications were explained to them.

PS. I thought this was a discussion about VAT on private education and universal free school meals for primary pupils, not yet another opportunity to have a dig at Corbyn's personal life!

Oh dd - you know very well that there is no thread in this world that cannot be used to have a go at JC??

Why they are banging on about free meals when school budgets are being hit beats me. I suppose Labour would aim to increase funding? if so, why don't they say so? I don't think this is a vote winner. Just because a child is poor doesn't mean that he/she will not get fed properly at home. Its the inadequate /neglectful parents who give their kids a bag of crisps or a mars bar for breakfast who are more of a worry. Sorry, that is going off on a tangent and not answering the question.

Labour would have to win an election first, you can promise the world when you are in opposition.

suzie I agree with you - this is just not a coherent policy is it? A coherent policy would identify that the school's budget needed increasing, it would identify priorities within that budget and then identify where extra funding was coming from eg by cutting other budgets, by bringing in tax increase - one of which could be VAT on independent school fees or taking away their charitable status. I just really can't believe the political stupidity of this particular proposal with no evidence base or figures etc

ninny but that's part of the problem - it's not promising anything thought through or meaningful let alone 'the earth'

suzied it would help poor working families who struggle to make ends meet and often are forced to use food banks. Healthy food is more expensive.

dd you clearly live in a very affluent area if a second rate school is charging £19,000. I know what the fees are because I am paying them for a highly rated school in the north and no I do not earn over £50,000 a year, I prioritised.