VAT on School Fees
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Don't think I've posted on one of your threads for ages, Tipsy!
But no one has ever satisfactorily explained to my why independent schools should have charitable status. You are a fervent supporter of public schools, but you so far have only said that the schools do "a vast amount for charity and are of public benefit" And that "Eton has given its rowing lake for the Olympics"
What vast amount? What public benefit? I'd really like to understand!
But no one has ever satisfactorily explained to my why independent schools should have charitable status. You are a fervent supporter of public schools, but you so far have only said that the schools do "a vast amount for charity and are of public benefit" And that "Eton has given its rowing lake for the Olympics"
What vast amount? What public benefit? I'd really like to understand!
To be fair, I think Tipsy is conceding that although it does some good things, perhaps Eton doesn't really deserve its charitable status? But even so, it shouldn't be charged VAT.
How could this be achieved, Tipsy? You seem to be arguing that the Charity Commission should turn a blind eye to Independent Schools and pretend that they should remain charities. The justification for this seems to be along the lines that some members of the government use the Independent system, and therefore they are hypocrites for acting against their own interests and removing charitable status. Not sure I completely follow your definition of hypocrisy, but I have probably got it all wrong as usual.
How could this be achieved, Tipsy? You seem to be arguing that the Charity Commission should turn a blind eye to Independent Schools and pretend that they should remain charities. The justification for this seems to be along the lines that some members of the government use the Independent system, and therefore they are hypocrites for acting against their own interests and removing charitable status. Not sure I completely follow your definition of hypocrisy, but I have probably got it all wrong as usual.
-
T.i.p.s.y
If you look on certain school websites under the public benefit sections it will give you an idea of some of the things they do. In an ideal world the government could charge VAT but then they can either stop taxing parents for a state education they do not use or offer them a voucher to put towards an education of there choice. I don't know what the solution is, but I still think its not in the governments interest to add VAT and then have to fund more state school places because parents can no longer afford fees.
Just read an article online which included these facts:
Charitable status: Facts
Value of bursaries provided by independent schools: £350m pa (ISC Annual Census 2008) Tax break £100m
Number of pupils benefiting from bursaries: 160,000 (31.2%) of which125,000 (24.5%) receive financial assistance from the school as opposed to other sources of funding (ISC Annual Census 2008)
Approx 490,000 children at ISC schools have entitlement to state school place
Social mix of ISC schools: 1 in 4 pupils comes from postcodes on or below average national income
...and one comment which was made (not my views) which I am sure will be highly provocative on this site is that for the most bright (IQ nationally), who are generally the least well off in the independent schools, if they get outpriced then they will be taking hundreds of grammar school places away as they are statistically more likely to get in.
So maybe these schools shouldn't be charities, but are people going to benefit or actually lose out if these tax breaks are removed. The rich will cope and the divide will become even greater.
Just read an article online which included these facts:
Charitable status: Facts
Value of bursaries provided by independent schools: £350m pa (ISC Annual Census 2008) Tax break £100m
Number of pupils benefiting from bursaries: 160,000 (31.2%) of which125,000 (24.5%) receive financial assistance from the school as opposed to other sources of funding (ISC Annual Census 2008)
Approx 490,000 children at ISC schools have entitlement to state school place
Social mix of ISC schools: 1 in 4 pupils comes from postcodes on or below average national income
...and one comment which was made (not my views) which I am sure will be highly provocative on this site is that for the most bright (IQ nationally), who are generally the least well off in the independent schools, if they get outpriced then they will be taking hundreds of grammar school places away as they are statistically more likely to get in.
So maybe these schools shouldn't be charities, but are people going to benefit or actually lose out if these tax breaks are removed. The rich will cope and the divide will become even greater.
Charitable status
Most independent schools would love to ditch their charitable status as it is only worth £255 per pupil per year (less than the average fee increase per year). Most parents would prefer it too. The private sector would then be freed from the whims of Suzi Leather and her cadres .
However, as someone mentioned earlier they cannot simply say to the government, to quote Tom Jones, "Please release me let me go" as they would have to give everything owned by the charitable trust to the state and the schools would cease to exist. So many schools (particularly the smaller ones), are caught between a rock and a hard place, powerless to refuse goverment demands to give more and more to the community, particularly to provide more and more bursaries.
As one head said recently, it's as if the government wants to restore the assisted places scheme but get the private sector to pay for it. Of course the only way for smaller schools to find the money is to increase fees. So some parents will have to struggle even more to find money for fees or be forced to return to the state sector so that some poorer children will be heavily subsidised or receive a free education. (I detect though some sort of skewed logic here though. If state education is as good as Ed Balls and co tell us it is, what advantage would a poor child receive by being taken out if the state sector and put in the private sector?)
Sadly, the current goverment loathes both private schools and grammar schools, though it doesn't stop them using them for their own children - and let's face it with their creative use of their allowances they'll always be able to find the money for school fees or tutors for their own offspring.
However, as someone mentioned earlier they cannot simply say to the government, to quote Tom Jones, "Please release me let me go" as they would have to give everything owned by the charitable trust to the state and the schools would cease to exist. So many schools (particularly the smaller ones), are caught between a rock and a hard place, powerless to refuse goverment demands to give more and more to the community, particularly to provide more and more bursaries.
As one head said recently, it's as if the government wants to restore the assisted places scheme but get the private sector to pay for it. Of course the only way for smaller schools to find the money is to increase fees. So some parents will have to struggle even more to find money for fees or be forced to return to the state sector so that some poorer children will be heavily subsidised or receive a free education. (I detect though some sort of skewed logic here though. If state education is as good as Ed Balls and co tell us it is, what advantage would a poor child receive by being taken out if the state sector and put in the private sector?)
Sadly, the current goverment loathes both private schools and grammar schools, though it doesn't stop them using them for their own children - and let's face it with their creative use of their allowances they'll always be able to find the money for school fees or tutors for their own offspring.
Sorry if I have not followed this argument properly, but I do agree that people should not have to pay VAT on any service that is available free as a public service and where if they waive their right to it, they are saving public money.
Therefore, even if an independent school was deemed not to be a charity, it should not be forced to charge VAT on its teaching fees.
I think I am right in saying that if you go to see a medical consultant privately, you do not pay VAT on the consultation fee. But the medical consultant is not working for a charity. But it is a service that you could have had free on the NHS and have therefore saved the NHS some money.
Therefore, even if an independent school was deemed not to be a charity, it should not be forced to charge VAT on its teaching fees.
I think I am right in saying that if you go to see a medical consultant privately, you do not pay VAT on the consultation fee. But the medical consultant is not working for a charity. But it is a service that you could have had free on the NHS and have therefore saved the NHS some money.
-
Demon Pixie
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:06 pm
Errrr......I think I am right in saying that if you go to see a medical consultant privately, you do not pay VAT on the consultation fee. But the medical consultant is not working for a charity. But it is a service that you could have had free on the NHS and have therefore saved the NHS some money.
Tempting though this idea is, I think it is highly unlikely that there is any relationship between opting out of public services and the payment of VAT. Of course we all have aspects of public expenditure that we would like to opt out of if we could. For some it is the war in Iraq, for others it is the NHS and sometimes, for me, it is refuse collectors who leave as much rubbish strewn over my garden as they take away.
This may be contraversial these individualist days, but don't we pay tax for the collective good? (although we disagree about what that might be)
The deal is not that we can pick and choose what we pay for, or even that we get back in services what we pay in in tax - (should we lobby to change the deal???)
You don't get a refund if you enjoy robust health and never have children - because there are benefits forall of us in an educated and healthy society.
Perhaps it is disingenuous to suggest that those who are paying for school fees are paying twice to have their children educated, when they will still benefit from public services when they need them - however imperfect they are for all of us.
Or maybe....like Bad Dad (
).....I've just got the wrong end of the stick.No I was not saying that one should be able to get one's money back on a public service if you chose not to use it. I was just saying that I thought that currently, and tell me if I am wrong, one does not pay VAT on a private consultation with a medical consultant.
I was making a comparison between this and education. Education and medical treatment are both available free of charge from the UK state, and privately. Higher up in this thread someone was saying that if a school was deemed not to be a charity, it may in the future have to charge VAT to parents on the fees. I was saying would be in contrast to a medical practitioner's fees which one does not pay VAT on (so far as I am aware) even though they are not working for charities either.
It does seem unfair to me if one paid for a public service through one's taxes, and then if one chose not to use it for whatever reason, pay tax again on the private alternative.
What about dentists too? Depending on one's area, some people cannot find an NHS dentist?
I was making a comparison between this and education. Education and medical treatment are both available free of charge from the UK state, and privately. Higher up in this thread someone was saying that if a school was deemed not to be a charity, it may in the future have to charge VAT to parents on the fees. I was saying would be in contrast to a medical practitioner's fees which one does not pay VAT on (so far as I am aware) even though they are not working for charities either.
It does seem unfair to me if one paid for a public service through one's taxes, and then if one chose not to use it for whatever reason, pay tax again on the private alternative.
What about dentists too? Depending on one's area, some people cannot find an NHS dentist?
