No children are being deprived of an education, and no one is having choice removed. Public schools are still being funded, and these children can go to them. If their parents aren’t satisfied with that, they can still send them to private schools. If you have concerns about the quality of education from public schools, feel free to explain to me how subsidizing private schools is helping that. And comparing subsidizing private schools when public schools are available to subsidizing children’s necessities is disingenuous at best.
You seem to think that rich parents paying their taxes whilst not sending children to state schools is a benevolent act. It’s no more benevolent than rich people paying their taxes who don’t have children.
Paying your taxes without being the sole beneficiary isn’t a benevolent act, it’s a moral and legal obligation, and we don’t take from people just according to what we spend on them, that would be the abolition of taxation, but we instead take from them according to how much income they have.
Honestly, the whole argument from “by rights the state owes me because they didn’t spend some of my taxes on me” it’s really entitled.
So yeah, children’s clothes etc are discounted for vat because having kids is expensive for everyone, and some people can’t afford it. But private education isn’t benefiting anyone except rich people and it’s legitimate to decide we can’t afford it after years and years of austerity where somehow this escaped the knife because it would have affected actual Conservative MPs, so obviously we can’t have that.
deleted by creator
No children are being deprived of an education, and no one is having choice removed. Public schools are still being funded, and these children can go to them. If their parents aren’t satisfied with that, they can still send them to private schools. If you have concerns about the quality of education from public schools, feel free to explain to me how subsidizing private schools is helping that. And comparing subsidizing private schools when public schools are available to subsidizing children’s necessities is disingenuous at best.
deleted by creator
You seem to think that rich parents paying their taxes whilst not sending children to state schools is a benevolent act. It’s no more benevolent than rich people paying their taxes who don’t have children.
Paying your taxes without being the sole beneficiary isn’t a benevolent act, it’s a moral and legal obligation, and we don’t take from people just according to what we spend on them, that would be the abolition of taxation, but we instead take from them according to how much income they have.
Honestly, the whole argument from “by rights the state owes me because they didn’t spend some of my taxes on me” it’s really entitled.
So yeah, children’s clothes etc are discounted for vat because having kids is expensive for everyone, and some people can’t afford it. But private education isn’t benefiting anyone except rich people and it’s legitimate to decide we can’t afford it after years and years of austerity where somehow this escaped the knife because it would have affected actual Conservative MPs, so obviously we can’t have that.
deleted by creator
That’s not a substantive point and sidesteps every single point I made with a simple and decidedly vague “that’s not exactly the words I said”.
So attribution aside, is there anything I said that you agree or disagree with? Any actual points to make?