V.A.T, in school fees

DD 16k per annum is way below the average wage .Some people on benefits get more than that with HB CT, and passported benefits.
Like I said he lived in a bad area, he forfitted alot and went without, so that his son a young boy of West Indian parentagecould have the wonderful career he has got, and why should he not,If VAT was added he told me he would not have been able to afford it. Also people on the same salary as him did not send their children to fee paying schools they spent their money on other things. ( their Business and their choice)
Dianne Abbott whose son went to a fee paying school saying she would pay the VAT can afford to; others cannot. So bet away. Good on hardworkingparents who make that choice.

Hollycat re your post how could any government close down a small private school? If they are private surely there can be no state interference? I am intrigued.

I think you'll find that very few people receive more than £16,000 in benefits. I was unemployed for just under two years, as a single parent with two children, and I couldn't find any way of receiving £16,000. Believe me, I looked into everything. £16k isn't way below the median wage either. I'm afraid you've fallen for the tabloid myths!

I'm not criticising him for sending his son to an independent school, if he could afford it. He's free to do what he wants with his money, but please don't claim that he wasn't wealthy according to most people's definition. Sending a child to an independent school is not an option for the vast majority of people, however hard they work.

trisher I haven't eaten many since 2014, but those I've eaten were just as bad! It's a bit different in primary schools, but secondary schools usually offer a self-service system. The nutritional guidelines state there must be healthy choices, but they can't force the pupils to choose them. Most schools offer some kind of dessert, such as iced buns, because they're cheap to make and profitable. I have watched so many pupils, especially girls, buy just an iced bun. They don't get fat, but they couldn't be called "nutritious". Others buy just a baked potato or a bowl of pasta (sometimes with a gloopy sugary tomato sauce), which are fine as part of a balanced diet, but not on their own.

PS. Apart from when I was doing supply teaching, I used to ask the cooks to make me a plain salad with an egg or slice of ham or fish, because the usual food was so awful.

PPS. The nutritional standards were tweaked in 2014, but had been in operation for many years before that.

The sixteen thousand is not the average, rates increase yearly , an eleven year old does not pay the same as a sixteen year old

I have not fallen for any media myths, with rent, council tax, ctc and other p assported benefits help, it is sometimes 16k sometimes more and somtimes less and he definatly was not wealthy according to some people's definition just hard working, and please do not say he is wealthy. He is not. I live in Greater London and trust me with rent and CT people do get more than 16k.I will thank you not to paronise me DD as I work long hours in a very hard job that deals with all sorts of people from different backgrounds so my knowledge is not limited to my personnel cucumstances or nievity. My partner went without for years and your stupid statement of wealthy just beggars belief.

My take is that it's just one of a raft of ideas the current Labour Party will be announcing before the next election to increase taxes across the board and "soak the rich" (or at least those they consider to be rich). I don't think such policies have a great deal of support but we'll just have to wait and see.

Sorry, rafichagran, you really have fallen for media myths. It is nearly always well below £16,000. I know, because I've been there. I wasn't even affected by any benefit cuts and I received well below £16,000 for three of us.

Yes, I will say that 80% of people who can afford to send their children to independet schools are wealthy.

80% of households of children at independent schools have income greater than £50,000.

Only 10% of households in the UK have a total income greater than £50,000. Maybe our understanding of "wealthy" differs, but my view is that the top 10% should be considered wealthy.

The median household income after housing costs in the UK is just under £24,000. I do not accept that a household on median income could afford over £16,000 in school fees per child.

PS. I would thank you to look at some facts!

Have a nice day!

daphne - those schemes in the article you linked would, I guess, be caught by the "Tax Avoidance Disclosure" regulations - introduced in 2014 - I won't quote them all - the guidance runs to 166 pages As soon as people find loopholes HMRC tries to plug them.
The major advantage of company benefits lies in avoiding some NIC - also taking part of income as contribution to a pension pot instead of salary has tax advantages but again it's complex & a specialist issue and not for this thread or such a lovely sunny afternoon
As for overseas based people - it depends ..... private sector employees, Crown employees, Forces personnel, residency, domicile status, length of time abroad, tax payable overseas, Double Taxation Relief ... arrgh...
For most people - we don't have the worry of protecting all that dosh from HMRC - a modest income and our tax is just taken away via PAYE - and I'm happy with that - paying my share for our services.

Wealth depends on more than gross wage. Take home payfor someone earning £50 k would be under 37k. The average house price in London is getting on for £500k. I doubt someone earning that sum in London isn't on the bemreadline but I doubt they will feel very wealthy.

Don't forget, some schools fees are paid by grandparents (in whole or in part) so this vat idea would clobber them as well.
A few well-off parents have always dispersed their wealth in this way, feeling it a worthy home for money they need to "lose" before death duties.

By the same token, contributions are often made by grandparents towards their lower-paid children's household income - so you could say they pay for their GC's school meals.

Either way, it's not a winner for JC.

What is?

That's the point fitzy. They don't feel wealthy but they are, compared with many people.

db I don't have to use any tax avoidance scheme either, for the simple reason that I don't have a high enough income to pay tax, but I'm not poor enough to claim benefits. Maybe you can see where I'm coming from when I claim that people who can afford £16k school fees are wealthy. Am I right in thinking that the tax on benefits is relatively new?

The claim that only some people in receipt of benefits get less than £16k is nonsense - even in Greater London.

Poverty campaigners have calculated that 116,000 families in the UK will be affected by the reduction in benefit cap to £23k in London and £20k in the rest of the country.

116,000 families might sound a lot and is, of course, devastating for those affected. However, it's a tiny percent of the estimated 11 million families (excluding pensioner households) who receive benefits. More than half of them rely on benefits for at least half of their income. The average (mean) amount of benefits for those receiving any benefits (including sickness benefits) is about £90.

DD I do not have to look up facts,I know them from my work. I do not read the tabloids, you knew your circumstances, and not other peoples,Living in London where rents are high, 16k is a very low amount.
I would also thankyou not to refer to my partner as wealthy, when you do not know his situation. A very intelligent man who worked in factories doing hard work rather than sign on because he could not get the jobs he was qualified to do because of his skin colour.He then finally got a break but on a low salary and he worked his way up. He knew his son was not going to go through what he did, so he scrimped , scraped and done without to afford his sons education. If VAT was on top of that he could not afford it.
I totally admire my partner and people who work hard to afford this education and whilst I do not begrudge poor households free school meals I don't see why one set of parents should pay for others.
I would also add I was a single parent at one time on the old family credit, I did not qualify for free school meals and I did not expect it, its my responsibility, and I would not want it paid for by other school children's parents.
So you have a nice day*DD*and stop thinking every ones circumstances are the same as your own.

If subsidised school meals are paid for through general taxation then wealthier parents who avail themselves of state education for whatever reason will be paying for it through their higher rate of general taxation and all children will benefit; those in need should receive meals free of charge.

To penalise parents who choose to pay for private education as well as paying through general taxation for the education of the children of other people is the politics of envy.

Interesting that it was an idea of Michael Gove taken on by Jeremy Corbyn.
Will Corbyn admirers think that Gove's idea was a good one?
Angela Rayner for one said of Michael Gove's proprosal:
Quite frankly, it is one of the most sensible education policies I have heard him propose

Far right and far left meet somewhere round the back of sensible thoughts.

If it comes to the cost Private schools benefit hugely from teacher training which is state education. If they really want to be independent they should train their own teachers as it is the cost of training a teacher is born by the tax payer and private schools benefit

We seem to have at least three discussions going on here:

1 Should independent schools lose their charitable status and pay VAT?
2 Should all primary school pupils receive free school lunches?
3 Should the two be linked?

1 Yes. I think they should, although I would want to see how this would work in practice and whether there would be unintended consequences.

2 No. It would cost an estimated billion pounds and I think the money could be better spent by targeting those who really need the money rather than those who don't. Lessons could be learnt from the pupil premium programme or perhaps looking at extra funding for pre-school and/or before and after school clubs. I am not convinced that school dinners are that nutritious. If the aim is to make sure children are fed properly throughout the year, there is still the problem of school holidays and weekends.

3. Definitely no, because (as we can see on this thread) people start squabbling about unfairness, etc.

Oh, and Number 4...Will anything happen anyway?

Probably not, because I seriously can't see Labour winning the 2020 election.

And those who teach in public schools and educated by the state are different to those who study medicine or anything then leave the country? Those who are educated in other countries and come here to work should stay in their own country?

Errmmm trisher These days, the cost of training teachers is usually borne by the trainee teachers themselves, apart from those in a few subjects, who receive a training bursary.

I don't think they are, rafichagran but your claim that your partner was not wealthy gets up my nose.

And I assume the cost of training these teachers and is paid for by tax tax payers theseare all children of parents who hive never paid tax ?

I don't understand your point. Teachers usually pay for their own training these days and take out loans to do so. What does their parents' tax status have to do with it? Parents' income doesn't affect the money students receive from the state since grants were abolished.