SciFiBoy said:
TheRealMafoo said:
SciFiBoy said:
in addition, parents can hold the government to account for failings and errors, they cant hold a private school to account as the school dosent have to listen, the private sector allways has its own agenda, whats to stop schools from forcing there political or religous views on the children? whats to stop private schools giving certian people prefferential treatment? state education is the only way to go, its fair, can be held to account and is cost effective if done properly and funded by progressive taxation.
|
Everything in this paragraph is wrong. Everything.
If you don’t like what the school is teaching your kids, change schools. In the UK, if you don’t like the school your children are in, what’s your options?
Also, the last sentience is funny. You can have an inefficient system that you make the rich pay, but doing so does not make it “cost effective”. It just makes a very non cost effective system paid for by the rich.
Collecting taxes and spending taxes are totally independent. Finding ways to collect more money to pay for an inefficient system is a very poor solution to the problem. If you’re spending too much money on something, fix it.
|
yes, because every parent can move home to get there child into a good school, everyone is made of money?
so cost effective is putting poorer people into debt? how can making the rich pay more than the poor not be cost effective?
sigh, read my posts properly, i agree the system needs to be improved, but i think the best way to do that is to keep a state education system
|
Do you understand the definition of cost effective? Cause I don't think you do. Cost effective means getting a good result by spending little money. Distribution of taxes to keep a system running has no effect on cost effectiveness.
Also what your missing is Mafoo's plan isn't a debt.
It's a non permanent tax. That you only pay when working anyway.
VS the permanent tax the poor currently pay.
It's a net positive for the poor.
