| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 09:29 - Mar 11 with 1505 views | DJR |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 17:30 - Mar 10 by mellowblue |
One aspect rarely mentioned is that now those schools are VATable, they can now reclaim VAT on projects and purchases that include VAT. Takes a bit of the sting away. |
The facilities at the prestigious public school in the town where I live are so good that the Australian athletics team based themselves there during London 2012. |  | |  |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 09:33 - Mar 11 with 1486 views | DJR |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 18:08 - Mar 10 by bluelagos |
And boosting their exam results... |
My understanding is that the prestigious public schools make pupils whose results might not be up to scratch sit exams externally so as not to affect their "official" results. | | | |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 09:44 - Mar 11 with 1462 views | DJR |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 20:49 - Mar 10 by Swansea_Blue |
No surprise. Private school fees have increased substantially over the last c. 15 years and that didn’t affect demand. So a 20% uplifting wasn’t likely to have much of an impact in the main. There’ll no doubt be some parents who get priced out, but then you have to ask could they really afford it in the first place. For the majority it won’t make a jot of difference and there’s no way a 20% increase will stop them keeping up with the Joneses. [Post edited 10 Mar 21:06]
|
I think a bit of context is also necessary.
The average cost of private school fees prior to VAT being added was roughly £15,000. For a family with two children, with a likely large mortgage to pay and perhaps tuition fees to repay, I would imagine a combined income well in excess of £100,000 would be needed to cover fees of £30,0000 , unless Grandma* pays.
Whilst VAT is 20%, the increase in fees is unlikely to be anything like that high (given, say, the ability to reclaim VAT).
If we assume 10%, we are looking at a £3,000 increase, not really that large in the scheme of things, and if this causes a problem there is always the possibility of adding a little to to mortgage, or relying on or more heavily on Grandma.
*Where I live Grandma (sitting on all that income and wealth) was certainly a source of paying the fees for some I know. [Post edited 11 Mar 9:58]
| | | |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 10:07 - Mar 11 with 1411 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 09:44 - Mar 11 by DJR |
I think a bit of context is also necessary.
The average cost of private school fees prior to VAT being added was roughly £15,000. For a family with two children, with a likely large mortgage to pay and perhaps tuition fees to repay, I would imagine a combined income well in excess of £100,000 would be needed to cover fees of £30,0000 , unless Grandma* pays.
Whilst VAT is 20%, the increase in fees is unlikely to be anything like that high (given, say, the ability to reclaim VAT).
If we assume 10%, we are looking at a £3,000 increase, not really that large in the scheme of things, and if this causes a problem there is always the possibility of adding a little to to mortgage, or relying on or more heavily on Grandma.
*Where I live Grandma (sitting on all that income and wealth) was certainly a source of paying the fees for some I know. [Post edited 11 Mar 9:58]
|
Given a lot of this is driven by status, I'm sure that's a price many will still be prepared to pay.
Apparently fees rose on average by 8% last year and before then had gone up by about 50%+ over the previous 12-15 years. None of that seemed to have affected demand at a time when average real term wages were falling. We're largely talking about a different group of people to average workers - as you say, people with accessible money behind them in one way or another be it large salaries or bank of grandparents, etc.
I do have some sympathies where people have genuine issues in the state system due to special needs of a child. For most of us though, you can improve your kids' performance at school by being fully engaged in what they are doing and helping them structure and focus their efforts. |  |
| |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 10:10 - Mar 11 with 1398 views | mutters |
It's too early to see the real impact. Lots of parents will try and soldier on, and would be reluctant to pull their child/children out unless necessary.
However this article is about children starting at state schools (year 7). Be interesting to see stats on transfers from private to state for other years |  |
| |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 10:14 - Mar 11 with 1390 views | DJR |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 10:07 - Mar 11 by Swansea_Blue |
Given a lot of this is driven by status, I'm sure that's a price many will still be prepared to pay.
Apparently fees rose on average by 8% last year and before then had gone up by about 50%+ over the previous 12-15 years. None of that seemed to have affected demand at a time when average real term wages were falling. We're largely talking about a different group of people to average workers - as you say, people with accessible money behind them in one way or another be it large salaries or bank of grandparents, etc.
I do have some sympathies where people have genuine issues in the state system due to special needs of a child. For most of us though, you can improve your kids' performance at school by being fully engaged in what they are doing and helping them structure and focus their efforts. |
The issue though with special needs provision in the private school system is that the parents are expected to pay for it, if it is not a specialist school. This has meant (well before the VAT increase) some children locally leaving to the state sector because the parents can't afford, say, a one-to-one teaching assistant..
Of course, this is not the issue for the wealthy. A prep school in Sevenoaks is currently looking for a one-to-one TA at an hourly rate of £40-50, presumably because the parents will pay anything. [Post edited 11 Mar 10:47]
| | | |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 10:15 - Mar 11 with 1386 views | Trequartista |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 20:05 - Mar 10 by Lord_Lucan |
That sounds a bookkeeping nightmare.
"Mavis, can we claim the vat on these elastic bands or not"? |
Like a public school would employ someone called Mavis |  |
| |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 13:33 - Mar 11 with 1309 views | itfc48 |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 09:33 - Mar 11 by DJR |
My understanding is that the prestigious public schools make pupils whose results might not be up to scratch sit exams externally so as not to affect their "official" results. |
Historically that's not just been a public school sector tactic. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 13:43 - Mar 11 with 1293 views | DJR |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 13:33 - Mar 11 by itfc48 |
Historically that's not just been a public school sector tactic. |
That's true. Indeed, St Olave's in Orpington (a State grammar school) even went as far as kicking out pupils in yea 12.
At the time the school had a policy whereby A-Level pupils who wished to continue their studies in Year 13 were required to gain at least grade C at AS level in the three subjects that they wished to take at A2 level.
I thought it bad enough at the time that my son's grammar school required certain grades at GCSE to continue to the sixth form but kicking people out mid-way through sixth form took that approach to extremes.
[Post edited 11 Mar 13:45]
| | | |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 00:20 - Mar 12 with 1235 views | bluestandard |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 20:05 - Mar 10 by Lord_Lucan |
That sounds a bookkeeping nightmare.
"Mavis, can we claim the vat on these elastic bands or not"? |
It wouldn't have been that complicated as before the trading most of the services provided were not vatable supplies and therefore there would be no VAT recovery on any items that related to those supplies.
What I think people don't understand is that VAT recovery of ongoing trading expenses is one thing, but actually the big ticket item is CAPITAL ALLOWANCES. For schools like Eton etc, this will amount to 10's of millions of pounds, and will be payable on submission of a claim. It will be interesting to see the figures on this down the line, but my prediction (and I'm not alone here) is that the amount claimed in backdated capital allowances will far exceed any revenue raised by this measure. The glee that the OP seems to be displaying is certainly misplaced at least on this point.
I also agree with what others have said that the full effect of these measures will be more apparent many months from now when the impact on the beginning of the next full school year will be apparent. However, logically the impact now would be a decline in NEW pupil enquiries, ie. parents willing to start their child in private education knowing the current VAT position. The evidence here seems pretty grim:-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/04/private-schools-closusre-blame-labou | | | |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 08:43 - Mar 12 with 1152 views | DJR |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 00:20 - Mar 12 by bluestandard |
It wouldn't have been that complicated as before the trading most of the services provided were not vatable supplies and therefore there would be no VAT recovery on any items that related to those supplies.
What I think people don't understand is that VAT recovery of ongoing trading expenses is one thing, but actually the big ticket item is CAPITAL ALLOWANCES. For schools like Eton etc, this will amount to 10's of millions of pounds, and will be payable on submission of a claim. It will be interesting to see the figures on this down the line, but my prediction (and I'm not alone here) is that the amount claimed in backdated capital allowances will far exceed any revenue raised by this measure. The glee that the OP seems to be displaying is certainly misplaced at least on this point.
I also agree with what others have said that the full effect of these measures will be more apparent many months from now when the impact on the beginning of the next full school year will be apparent. However, logically the impact now would be a decline in NEW pupil enquiries, ie. parents willing to start their child in private education knowing the current VAT position. The evidence here seems pretty grim:-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/04/private-schools-closusre-blame-labou |
My post didn't display glee at the point you are suggesting. Indeed, politically I always thought VAT on private schools was an odd battle for Labour to fight given that it was never projected to raise that much in the scheme of things.
As regards what you say about CAPITAL ALLOWANCES, I am not convinced that it is right.
Section 2(1) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 provides
"Allowances and charges are to be given effect—
(a) for income tax purposes, in calculating income for a chargeable period, and
(b) for corporation tax purposes, in calculating profits for a chargeable period."
Unless I am missing them, bringing private schools in to the realm of VAT, does not bring them into the realm of income tax or corporation tax, so in my view claiming capital allowances will not be possible.
Of course, it may be that private schools are already able to claim capital allowances by the use of trading companies for things like buildings (just as Age UK has a trading arm) but if that is the case it has nothing to do with VAT.
The Telegraph article you have linked is paywalled (and they have an agenda anway) but I would imagine a far greater impact on those entering private schools (if there is one) is the decline in the primary school population. In 2012, there were 812,000 births in the UK which has steadily declined since then to around 600,000. The bulge is currently passing through the secondary school system but the declining birth rate has impacted the primary school population, with schools closing, merging or having declining class sizes.
My daughter is currently doing supply teaching in Kent and many of the primary schools she visits have numbers below or well below 30, even in urban areas. Of course, local authorities will seek to keep schools open if they can, but if you are a private school there may become a point at which you cannot afford to do that. [Post edited 12 Mar 9:54]
| | | |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 09:18 - Mar 12 with 1112 views | mellowblue |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 08:43 - Mar 12 by DJR |
My post didn't display glee at the point you are suggesting. Indeed, politically I always thought VAT on private schools was an odd battle for Labour to fight given that it was never projected to raise that much in the scheme of things.
As regards what you say about CAPITAL ALLOWANCES, I am not convinced that it is right.
Section 2(1) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 provides
"Allowances and charges are to be given effect—
(a) for income tax purposes, in calculating income for a chargeable period, and
(b) for corporation tax purposes, in calculating profits for a chargeable period."
Unless I am missing them, bringing private schools in to the realm of VAT, does not bring them into the realm of income tax or corporation tax, so in my view claiming capital allowances will not be possible.
Of course, it may be that private schools are already able to claim capital allowances by the use of trading companies for things like buildings (just as Age UK has a trading arm) but if that is the case it has nothing to do with VAT.
The Telegraph article you have linked is paywalled (and they have an agenda anway) but I would imagine a far greater impact on those entering private schools (if there is one) is the decline in the primary school population. In 2012, there were 812,000 births in the UK which has steadily declined since then to around 600,000. The bulge is currently passing through the secondary school system but the declining birth rate has impacted the primary school population, with schools closing, merging or having declining class sizes.
My daughter is currently doing supply teaching in Kent and many of the primary schools she visits have numbers below or well below 30, even in urban areas. Of course, local authorities will seek to keep schools open if they can, but if you are a private school there may become a point at which you cannot afford to do that. [Post edited 12 Mar 9:54]
|
the falling birthrate has certainly affected the school I was a governor at for 18 years. With 210 places available, we always had a pan of 205-210 as it was a decent primary. It is currentyly down to 185. That 20 shortfall represents £80,000 in income. Very significant and has eroded any reserves away to zero, yet there is no way to cut costs short of reducing TAs which would cause a rebellion. And anyway the shool has a proportionately high level of SEND pupils so they definirelt need thoses TAs. I gave it up as now being part of a MAT it was like working for a Corporation rather than the local school and the role was much diminished to little more than rubber stamping . | | | |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 12:08 - Mar 12 with 1049 views | itfcjoe |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 00:20 - Mar 12 by bluestandard |
It wouldn't have been that complicated as before the trading most of the services provided were not vatable supplies and therefore there would be no VAT recovery on any items that related to those supplies.
What I think people don't understand is that VAT recovery of ongoing trading expenses is one thing, but actually the big ticket item is CAPITAL ALLOWANCES. For schools like Eton etc, this will amount to 10's of millions of pounds, and will be payable on submission of a claim. It will be interesting to see the figures on this down the line, but my prediction (and I'm not alone here) is that the amount claimed in backdated capital allowances will far exceed any revenue raised by this measure. The glee that the OP seems to be displaying is certainly misplaced at least on this point.
I also agree with what others have said that the full effect of these measures will be more apparent many months from now when the impact on the beginning of the next full school year will be apparent. However, logically the impact now would be a decline in NEW pupil enquiries, ie. parents willing to start their child in private education knowing the current VAT position. The evidence here seems pretty grim:-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/04/private-schools-closusre-blame-labou |
These schools are businesses and if they can't trade profitability in the current environment then they will need to adapt or die. The majority will adapt as have huge amounts of fat in them compared to the state sector which has to run incredibly leanly in comparison. |  |
| |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 16:51 - Mar 12 with 932 views | bluestandard |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 08:43 - Mar 12 by DJR |
My post didn't display glee at the point you are suggesting. Indeed, politically I always thought VAT on private schools was an odd battle for Labour to fight given that it was never projected to raise that much in the scheme of things.
As regards what you say about CAPITAL ALLOWANCES, I am not convinced that it is right.
Section 2(1) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 provides
"Allowances and charges are to be given effect—
(a) for income tax purposes, in calculating income for a chargeable period, and
(b) for corporation tax purposes, in calculating profits for a chargeable period."
Unless I am missing them, bringing private schools in to the realm of VAT, does not bring them into the realm of income tax or corporation tax, so in my view claiming capital allowances will not be possible.
Of course, it may be that private schools are already able to claim capital allowances by the use of trading companies for things like buildings (just as Age UK has a trading arm) but if that is the case it has nothing to do with VAT.
The Telegraph article you have linked is paywalled (and they have an agenda anway) but I would imagine a far greater impact on those entering private schools (if there is one) is the decline in the primary school population. In 2012, there were 812,000 births in the UK which has steadily declined since then to around 600,000. The bulge is currently passing through the secondary school system but the declining birth rate has impacted the primary school population, with schools closing, merging or having declining class sizes.
My daughter is currently doing supply teaching in Kent and many of the primary schools she visits have numbers below or well below 30, even in urban areas. Of course, local authorities will seek to keep schools open if they can, but if you are a private school there may become a point at which you cannot afford to do that. [Post edited 12 Mar 9:54]
|
The Capital Allowances Act 2001 introduced the capital goods scheme. See links below explaining how schools will now be able to claim the VAT on capital projects going back 10 years:-
https://www.grantthornton.co.uk/insights/autumn-budget-2024/changing-taxation-en
https://www.penningtonslaw.com/news-publications/latest-news/2025/update-on-vat- | | | |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 16:54 - Mar 12 with 921 views | bluestandard |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 12:08 - Mar 12 by itfcjoe |
These schools are businesses and if they can't trade profitability in the current environment then they will need to adapt or die. The majority will adapt as have huge amounts of fat in them compared to the state sector which has to run incredibly leanly in comparison. |
All businesses need to adapt or die. Not sure what this adds to the debate. I think your point about 'schools having 'fat' in them which can be trimmed is lazy and only accurate for the elite schools like Eton etc. | | | |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 20:31 - Mar 12 with 860 views | pstudd |
The exodus was never going to be immediate as families look to see out the academic year rather than move their children mid-year. Working in the independent sector, the 6-8% figure that was proposed won't be far wrong and will significantly impact the £1.6 billion the government said it will raise. We will know fully in a year or two. |  | | |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 21:30 - Mar 12 with 828 views | TractorWood |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 17:30 - Mar 10 by mellowblue |
One aspect rarely mentioned is that now those schools are VATable, they can now reclaim VAT on projects and purchases that include VAT. Takes a bit of the sting away. |
It's actually generated a load of public schools going back and claiming vast amounts of VAT from building their auditoriums and sports facilities. VAT they would have otherwise sunk.
I know public schools offer a load in terms of network, flourishing their skills individually etc but paying (say) £30k per year for (say) 12 years would be £360k. Surely you'd be much better sending them to the best local state school, spending £5k on tutoring and sports clubs each year and putting the rest in a stocks and shares ISA each year to pay for uni and their first gaff. But what do I know! |  |
| |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 21:36 - Mar 12 with 823 views | DJR |
The Capital Allowances Act 2001 (which relates to income and corporation tax) did not introduce the capital goods scheme (which relates to VAT).
The capital goods scheme is contained in regulations 112 - 116 of the Value Add Tax Regulations 1995 which were made under the Value Added Tax Act 1994.
This from Thomson Reuters Practical Law explains what the capital goods scheme is.
"A set of rules that determine the extent to which credit is given for input tax incurred on expenditure above a specified amount on certain land and buildings, computer equipment, aircraft and ships, boats or other vessels (Regulations 112-116, Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/2518)). The rules operate by establishing an initial entitlement to deduction of input tax that is then subject to adjustment over a subsequent period of five or ten years if the subsequent use to which the assets have been put changes (for example, from taxable to exempt use or vice versa)."
Apologies if I appear to be a pedant, but I have experience of drafting tax legislation, and it was your putting capital allowances in capital letters which made me want to correct what you said.
What I think you were trying to say (and this is what the links you provide confirm) is that with VAT now chargeable on private school fees, schools will be able to claim inputs. But this is something that was known and will have been taken into account when the government estimated the tax take. And it will be a factor that will mean that school fees will not increase by as much as 20%.
I might add that the scope for avoidance seems limited.
And HMRC have provided some helpful guidance.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/charging-and-reclaiming-vat-on-goods-and-services-re [Post edited 12 Mar 22:10]
| | | |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 22:48 - Mar 12 with 774 views | grow_our_own |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 17:30 - Mar 10 by mellowblue |
One aspect rarely mentioned is that now those schools are VATable, they can now reclaim VAT on projects and purchases that include VAT. Takes a bit of the sting away. |
That's standard for all private companies who pay VAT. Can't complain. What you can complain about is the rarely mentioned non-paying of corporation tax and capital gains tax. Private schools are private businesses, yet are STILL taxed as if they're charities. | | | |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 23:00 - Mar 12 with 765 views | TractorWood |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 22:48 - Mar 12 by grow_our_own |
That's standard for all private companies who pay VAT. Can't complain. What you can complain about is the rarely mentioned non-paying of corporation tax and capital gains tax. Private schools are private businesses, yet are STILL taxed as if they're charities. |
Not really. Some are private businesses. Most are registered as charitable organisations that provide wider public benefit. So are taxed as such.
Either way, none are likely to pay CGT unless they are partnerships or LLPs which is perhaps unlikely.
If they did have to pay corporation tax I'm sure they'd just play with their fees and capital strategies to mitigate their CT bill.
VAT is the obvious tax to definitively punish them as it's a consumer tax so Joe public almost always pays. [Post edited 12 Mar 23:02]
| |
| |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 23:12 - Mar 12 with 755 views | grow_our_own |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 23:00 - Mar 12 by TractorWood |
Not really. Some are private businesses. Most are registered as charitable organisations that provide wider public benefit. So are taxed as such.
Either way, none are likely to pay CGT unless they are partnerships or LLPs which is perhaps unlikely.
If they did have to pay corporation tax I'm sure they'd just play with their fees and capital strategies to mitigate their CT bill.
VAT is the obvious tax to definitively punish them as it's a consumer tax so Joe public almost always pays. [Post edited 12 Mar 23:02]
|
You miss my point. These are private businesses, not charities because they serve zero public good. I'm aware of the unjustifiable current carve-out. If they should pay VAT because they are in fact private businesses (in all but the letter of the current regs), then they should also pay CT and CGT. Because that's what all private businesses pay.
(I'm aware LLP members pay CGT and income tax instead of the LLP itself paying CGT and CT). [Post edited 12 Mar 23:13]
| | | |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 23:39 - Mar 12 with 739 views | TractorWood |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 23:12 - Mar 12 by grow_our_own |
You miss my point. These are private businesses, not charities because they serve zero public good. I'm aware of the unjustifiable current carve-out. If they should pay VAT because they are in fact private businesses (in all but the letter of the current regs), then they should also pay CT and CGT. Because that's what all private businesses pay.
(I'm aware LLP members pay CGT and income tax instead of the LLP itself paying CGT and CT). [Post edited 12 Mar 23:13]
|
Ltd companies don't pay CGT. Point of fact. All gains in companies are taxed as Corporation tax.
Your point is an opinion contrary to the actual regime and current legislation. I don't necessarily disagree it's just an opinion not the law. | |
| |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 08:19 - Mar 13 with 598 views | grow_our_own |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 23:39 - Mar 12 by TractorWood |
Ltd companies don't pay CGT. Point of fact. All gains in companies are taxed as Corporation tax.
Your point is an opinion contrary to the actual regime and current legislation. I don't necessarily disagree it's just an opinion not the law. |
"Ltd companies don't pay CGT. Point of fact. " - I stand corrected, but the amount of CGT individuals normally pay is added to Ltd companies' corp tax bill. So in effect, they pay it similarly to individuals.
That private schools don't pay corp tax is an unjustifiable carve-out. If it's been agreed that in everything but the letter of the current regs, they aren't charities because they serve zero public good, hence are now subject to VAT, then they should also pay corp tax. | | | |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 15:54 - Mar 13 with 486 views | bluestandard |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 21:36 - Mar 12 by DJR |
The Capital Allowances Act 2001 (which relates to income and corporation tax) did not introduce the capital goods scheme (which relates to VAT).
The capital goods scheme is contained in regulations 112 - 116 of the Value Add Tax Regulations 1995 which were made under the Value Added Tax Act 1994.
This from Thomson Reuters Practical Law explains what the capital goods scheme is.
"A set of rules that determine the extent to which credit is given for input tax incurred on expenditure above a specified amount on certain land and buildings, computer equipment, aircraft and ships, boats or other vessels (Regulations 112-116, Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/2518)). The rules operate by establishing an initial entitlement to deduction of input tax that is then subject to adjustment over a subsequent period of five or ten years if the subsequent use to which the assets have been put changes (for example, from taxable to exempt use or vice versa)."
Apologies if I appear to be a pedant, but I have experience of drafting tax legislation, and it was your putting capital allowances in capital letters which made me want to correct what you said.
What I think you were trying to say (and this is what the links you provide confirm) is that with VAT now chargeable on private school fees, schools will be able to claim inputs. But this is something that was known and will have been taken into account when the government estimated the tax take. And it will be a factor that will mean that school fees will not increase by as much as 20%.
I might add that the scope for avoidance seems limited.
And HMRC have provided some helpful guidance.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/charging-and-reclaiming-vat-on-goods-and-services-re [Post edited 12 Mar 22:10]
|
Yes sorry I got a couple of references mixed up there. I think my points is clear though. The Capital Good scheme now applies, and whilst you say it would have been taken into account, a) the Tories contest this, and b) the total to be claimed is an unknown (Labour would have had to estimate), so until the claims are made it will be impossible to tell whether the measure has raised any extra money. That's why I said it will be interesting to see the figures in a few years time. I think this debate has gone as far as it can. | | | |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 15:56 - Mar 13 with 481 views | DJR |
| Well, knock me down with a feather! on 15:54 - Mar 13 by bluestandard |
Yes sorry I got a couple of references mixed up there. I think my points is clear though. The Capital Good scheme now applies, and whilst you say it would have been taken into account, a) the Tories contest this, and b) the total to be claimed is an unknown (Labour would have had to estimate), so until the claims are made it will be impossible to tell whether the measure has raised any extra money. That's why I said it will be interesting to see the figures in a few years time. I think this debate has gone as far as it can. |
No problem at all. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
