But the predictably witless reaction of so many "liberal" journalists is making me feel better disposed towards it
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
* You would need to come up with some other way of identifying 'pupil premium' students, as at the moment it follow on from FSMAnatolyKasparov wrote:Must admit that I wasn't totally sure about this school meals thing.
But the predictably witless reaction of so many "liberal" journalists is making me feel better disposed towards it
It hardly matters what the policy is, does it?AnatolyKasparov wrote:Must admit that I wasn't totally sure about this school meals thing.
But the predictably witless reaction of so many "liberal" journalists is making me feel better disposed towards it
VAT is charged on all manner of things though, not just capex.gilsey wrote: It would need to be a hell of a capex programme, given that presumably by far the biggest expense of a school would be teachers. No input VAT on wages.
What do you mean all things being equal?AnatolyKasparov wrote:Yes, lots of "liberal" journalists are witless about nearly everything
(though I suspect that is not what you meant, of course)
HOWEVER, as a general principle and other things being equal universality should be preferred to means testing.
No thanks. Because I'm a right bastard "liberal", as some of his fans call people who disagree.Jeremy Corbyn MPVerified account @jeremycorbyn 4h4 hours ago
More
Labour’s #FreeSchoolMeals policy will mean better results, healthier children & end stigma around free school meals. RT if you’re with us →
i don't think so.pk1 wrote:I don't know much, if anything, about VAT in schools & on supplies of FSMs but found this interesting comment BTL at the Times:
Is s/he right ?So it is proposed to make free school meals available to all primary age children, including not just middle-income parents who can well afford to pay, but presumably the children of parents who are earning enough to have their child benefit taxed. It would surely be more logical and a better use of limited funds to find a means of ensuring that kids who currently qualify for free school meals during term time get adequate nutrition in the school holidays as well.
Labour's suggestions on VAT appear to have fallen into the same trap as Michael Gove, writing in The Times recently. School fees are currently exempt from VAT. This means that schools do not charge VAT on their outputs (fees) but can't recover the VAT they are charged on their inputs (expenses). If you make school fees VATable (and you can't do this in any case until the UK is out of Europe, because the VAT exemption is the result of an EC directive), then you also allow private schools to reduce all their standard-rated input costs by 16.7%. Since the VAT system involves paying over (or being repaid) the difference between the VAT you have charged and what you have been charged in an accounting period, you could well end up with a situation where schools with large capital expenditure programmes receive large, regular cash refunds from the taxpayer.
Therefore (I think) what you do is to ask your suppliers to submit invoices without VAT.Exempt business
If you only sell or otherwise supply goods or services that are exempt from VAT then yours is an exempt business and:
you cannot register for VAT
you cannot recover any VAT you incur on your purchases or expenses
Most major benefits should be universal (or nearly so) and means testing should be minimised as much as possible.Tubby Isaacs wrote:What do you mean all things being equal?AnatolyKasparov wrote:Yes, lots of "liberal" journalists are witless about nearly everything
(though I suspect that is not what you meant, of course)
HOWEVER, as a general principle and other things being equal universality should be preferred to means testing.
Thanks Roger. I'd be surprised if suppliers invoiced private schools without charging VAT if the suppliers themselves are VAT registered ?RogerOThornhill wrote:i don't think so.pk1 wrote:I don't know much, if anything, about VAT in schools & on supplies of FSMs but found this interesting comment BTL at the Times:
Is s/he right ?So it is proposed to make free school meals available to all primary age children, including not just middle-income parents who can well afford to pay, but presumably the children of parents who are earning enough to have their child benefit taxed. It would surely be more logical and a better use of limited funds to find a means of ensuring that kids who currently qualify for free school meals during term time get adequate nutrition in the school holidays as well.
Labour's suggestions on VAT appear to have fallen into the same trap as Michael Gove, writing in The Times recently. School fees are currently exempt from VAT. This means that schools do not charge VAT on their outputs (fees) but can't recover the VAT they are charged on their inputs (expenses). If you make school fees VATable (and you can't do this in any case until the UK is out of Europe, because the VAT exemption is the result of an EC directive), then you also allow private schools to reduce all their standard-rated input costs by 16.7%. Since the VAT system involves paying over (or being repaid) the difference between the VAT you have charged and what you have been charged in an accounting period, you could well end up with a situation where schools with large capital expenditure programmes receive large, regular cash refunds from the taxpayer.
My VAT knowledge is a trifle rusty after 8 years away but...
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-exempti ... -exemption" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Therefore (I think) what you do is to ask your suppliers to submit invoices without VAT.Exempt business
If you only sell or otherwise supply goods or services that are exempt from VAT then yours is an exempt business and:
you cannot register for VAT
you cannot recover any VAT you incur on your purchases or expenses
If legislation changes then public schools would have to register and then it would be the same as any other business and charge and reclaim VAT.
But don't quote me as I could be totally wrong.
The gimmicky tax policy attached to it is what raised my suspicions that it's basically a way of trying to prevent the usual cry of 'how are you going to pay for it'Willow904 wrote:I'm generally in favour of free school meals. There are a lot of good arguments for it. I believe Finland provides free school meals. I'm less keen on the piecemeal, transactional stuff, though. If you are going to do it should be for everyone, right up to when they leave school at 18. Properly universal because it's a good policy, not just for little ones because they eat less so it's more affordable. Linking it to gimmicky tax policy makes me think this won't happen. If it's only going to happen if a specific tax raises enough money, I don't believe it's going to happen. It makes it sound like an indulgent extra rather than a core Labour policy. It did, however, get people talking about policy. Which is good.
I don't know if it's a gimmicky tax policy. It's another Miliband-style tax rise that the vast majority of people won't pay, and that's fine. The problem is that I'm sceptical how many of these there are out there, and when I look at the problems with funding ongoing services, I think we've got to stick pretty much all the extra money we raise into those.Willow904 wrote:I'm generally in favour of free school meals. There are a lot of good arguments for it. I believe Finland provides free school meals. I'm less keen on the piecemeal, transactional stuff, though. If you are going to do it should be for everyone, right up to when they leave school at 18. Properly universal because it's a good policy, not just for little ones because they eat less so it's more affordable. Linking it to gimmicky tax policy makes me think this won't happen. If it's only going to happen if a specific tax raises enough money, I don't believe it's going to happen. It makes it sound like an indulgent extra rather than a core Labour policy. It did, however, get people talking about policy. Which is good.
But not wages.pk1 wrote:VAT is charged on all manner of things though, not just capex.gilsey wrote: It would need to be a hell of a capex programme, given that presumably by far the biggest expense of a school would be teachers. No input VAT on wages.
Customer's VAT status is irrelevant to whether supplier charges VAT or not, it's their own VAT status that counts.Therefore (I think) what you do is to ask your suppliers to submit invoices without VAT.
Yes, the Tories have seriously decimated the tax base. Not losing yet more services will be a struggle, let alone funding new committments. That's why I was so frustrated when Labour opposed the NICS rise for higher earning self-employed. Labour will need to convince people such tax rises are necessary to properly fund things like the NHS. Opposing tax rises on everyone but the very rich, from the very low base the Tories have taken us down to, isn't going produce the kind of changes this country needs.Tubby Isaacs wrote:I don't know if it's a gimmicky tax policy. It's another Miliband-style tax rise that the vast majority of people won't pay, and that's fine. The problem is that I'm sceptical how many of these there are out there, and when I look at the problems with funding ongoing services, I think we've got to stick pretty much all the extra money we raise into those.Willow904 wrote:I'm generally in favour of free school meals. There are a lot of good arguments for it. I believe Finland provides free school meals. I'm less keen on the piecemeal, transactional stuff, though. If you are going to do it should be for everyone, right up to when they leave school at 18. Properly universal because it's a good policy, not just for little ones because they eat less so it's more affordable. Linking it to gimmicky tax policy makes me think this won't happen. If it's only going to happen if a specific tax raises enough money, I don't believe it's going to happen. It makes it sound like an indulgent extra rather than a core Labour policy. It did, however, get people talking about policy. Which is good.
Regressive Tory tax cuts are certainly part of the problem, but also stuff like the Lib Dem inspired big rises in the personal allowance are very much part of the problem with funding services compared to when Labour was last in government.
I'd say whacking VAT on school fees is a bit more than a gimmick, and more power to his elbow on that score.Willow904 wrote:Linking it to gimmicky tax policy makes me think this won't happen. If it's only going to happen if a specific tax raises enough money, I don't believe it's going to happen. It makes it sound like an indulgent extra rather than a core Labour policy. It did, however, get people talking about policy. Which is good.
Yep. I can see why oppositions do stuff like that- part of their job is to undermine the government- but it was a a decent amount of money, with a logic behind it.Willow904 wrote:
Yes, the Tories have seriously decimated the tax base. Not losing yet more services will be a struggle, let alone funding new committments. That's why I was so frustrated when Labour opposed the NICS rise for higher earning self-employed. Labour will need to convince people such tax rises are necessary to properly fund things like the NHS. Opposing tax rises on everyone but the very rich, from the very low base the Tories have taken us down to, isn't going produce the kind of changes this country needs.
That was actually enforcing a "no fly zone" (including Russia's planes) there I think.Tubby Isaacs wrote:But but but- I thought bombing Syria was unthinkable because a Russian plane would get shut down and precipitate nuclear war.
Hi Paul!PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Evening All
I wonder why we (society) find school lunches so emotive.
If kids are at School all day they need some food. Just like they need exercise books, paper etc.
I do understand the "not the best use of cash" argument, but with appropriate taxation we could easily afford a modest meal for all our kids.
Political parties should have the guts to increase general taxation for public services, not hide behind hypothecated taxes which would probably cost more to implement & generate less than aimed for.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Evening All
I wonder why we (society) find school lunches so emotive.
If kids are at School all day they need some food. Just like they need exercise books, paper etc.
I do understand the "not the best use of cash" argument, but with appropriate taxation we could easily afford a modest meal for all our kids.
Yes, exactly.RobertSnozers wrote:The problem with this is that since 2010 parties (read: Labour) have to say where the money is coming from for every policy that costs money or they will be ridiculed or dismissed. Simply saying 'we'll just put taxes up' and not be any more specific strikes me as a monumentally crap way to sell a policy costing.pk1 wrote:Political parties should have the guts to increase general taxation for public services, not hide behind hypothecated taxes which would probably cost more to implement & generate less than aimed for.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Evening All
I wonder why we (society) find school lunches so emotive.
If kids are at School all day they need some food. Just like they need exercise books, paper etc.
I do understand the "not the best use of cash" argument, but with appropriate taxation we could easily afford a modest meal for all our kids.
This policy ought to be really creaking by now.HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... or-victims
Government under fire over new child tax credit form for rape victims
Form requiring rape victims to declare that they do not live with attacker called ‘inhumane and barbaric’ and a ‘vile policy’
No reason at all, sorry if I sounded a bit snarky. I think I meant, 'some people' will say aha, JC was a brexiter all along, as with state aid.RobertSnozers wrote: Anyway, given that Brexit is happening, why shouldn't Labour look for ways in which they can make it work for the people? That does not make it a 'Lexiter policy'
That's what I said. Womble's reassured me that I'm not cracking up. Yet.PS, Womble posted this on WNTT and wanted to post it here but no longer has login: "generally if your VATable income is higher than your VATable expenditure in any period, a payment will need to be made to HMRC. Given that VATable expenditure will be a relatively small proportion of the costs (wages taking up a significant portion) Corbyn’s policy will raise a fair amount more than is recovered by the schools."
Was that cannon fire, or is it my heart pounding?HindleA wrote:Either fireworks I am hearing or I am under attack,wouldn't rule out the latter.
Glad to know you're safeHindleA wrote:@CJA Fireworks at (one of) the local hostelries.