Perhaps I have, but that is how I understood what you were saying.
No.
A childless 90 year old couple have paid tax all their lives and have taken nothing out of the public school system they've funded. They don't deserve anything back as a result any more than a couple who've paid tax AND choose private education. That was my point.
I'll believe it when Labour stop sending their own kids there.
BBC NEWS | Politics | Abbott speaks out on school row
Labour MP Diane Abbott has said sending her son to a £10,000-a-year private school instead of a comprehensive is "indefensible".
/proxy.php?image=https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/e543c1211af27142a5e0e237874f4efca0bfd8e9/22_448_4593_2756/master/4593.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-align=bottom%2Cleft&overlay-width=100p&overlay-base64=L2ltZy9zdGF0aWMvb3ZlcmxheXMvdGctb3BpbmlvbnMucG5n&enable=upscale&s=fca328a484c8666f578d045925c4a769&hash=409edcdee829c9be5b7d77b2daf8bbd6&return_error=1 Shami Chakrabarti has undermined the education system she argues for | Frances Ryan When people like Chakrabarti siphon their children into grammars and private schools, they weaken their local comprehensive /proxy.php?image=https://assets.guim.co.uk/images/favicons/fee5e2d638d1c35f6d501fa397e53329/152x152.png&hash=67d6889a1b6b515b2f5bbd7b59798083&return_error=1 www.theguardian.com
“I have real concerns about grammar schools,” the new shadow attorney general said on ITV’s Peston on Sunday when asked about Labour’s opposition to selective education – before admitting she in fact sends her own son to a private school. That’s the prestigious Dulwich College at a cost of £18,000 a year.
True, but the option is there if that couple did have children.
If you have children and don’t use the state system, you are saving the state a lot of money.
Labour will lose this saving and contribute to oversize classes in our state schools.
Yeah. But it's never going to happen
What has that got to do with the charitable status of private education?
We all pay tax for services we never consume. It’s indiscriminate. Well indiscriminate to those who do actually contribute.
Agreed. He won’t get anything in return but increased costs. Besides it’s pie in the sky. The education system can’t cope with demand as it is, let alone having an influx of those who otherwise would have been self funding.
The whole paying twice argument is irrelevant. That's my point.
We have to agree to disagree then, as it is irrefutable that those who choose private education as paying twice in my opinion. Well unless they are those who get it for free.
I didn't say they weren't paying twice... Of course they are. I said the fact they are is irrelevant. That's their choice. They're paying twice and (arguably) getting a better education for their children. They don't deserve anything back as a result.