I guess we have a very different understanding of what the word choice means!
Why do I bother getting involved in a discussion of this kind. No one is changing their minds but what the heckâŚ
I am a healthy guy both through luck (genetics) and lifestyle choices. Because of that, I am pretty sure I subsidize the health care of the not so lucky and the less wise decision makers. Maybe I should be upset at that but I am not because I am grateful for a health care system that does look after all of us including my less lucky and less wise family and friends and for a health care system that will help me if I am ever unlucky or make a dumb decision.
On top of that, if I were even luckier and had the wealth to go to a private clinic or take advantage of health choices not available to everybody, I would not expect the public purse to pay for that choice. Suppose I needed knee replacement and our system costs it out at x dollars. But I can go to a private clinic for xx dollars. Maybe the private clinic can do it sooner. Maybe that private clinic has the best doctors in the world. Maybe that clinic has more extensive post-operative care. What ever the circumstances or reasons, I decide to go to this clinic for xx dollars. Should our public system pay any of the x dollars that they ultimately save by my choosing to opt out, by not taking advantage of the public system.
Now I know that there will be some who say yes to that question, but I am saying no. Most of us do not support a two tier health system.
As an argument for not giving more to the public schools, Liberal supporters (see above) point out that the BC system is one of the best in the world. People have very valid reasons for not choosing to send their kids to this pretty good system and that is their choice but the price they pay for that choice is the price they pay.
I find it deliciously ironic that Conservative/Liberal supporters bristle when people collect welfare, and they become outraged when it is suggested that the minimum wage should be increased. However, these same Liberal supporters feel perfectly justified in accepting a hand out from the government for their private schools.
⌠which is significantly less than the handout received by public school parents. Remember also that private school parents tend to put a lot more tax into the system. How many public school parents have a 50% marginal tax rate? As I explained above, denying education funding to private school parents is really just another tax on income. If thatâs what you are arguing for, thatâs fine by me and I do understand your viewpoint. Just be straight about it!
I truly wish I could deny you government handouts for your private school, but, Clark is a huge fan of private schools so you will continue to receive my tax dollars for your choice of a private education. You saying that Iâm proposing to take another tax from you is absurd. Youâre saying it is perfectly acceptable to use my tax dollars to fund your private school. Fair enough. I think the government should help to pay for my daughterâs private sport club fees. This makes as much sense as your argument.
Think of it this way. If all the private school kids all left and went back to public school, what would happen? What you fail to realize is that private school kids get much less funding than public school kids. So if this happened, your taxes would need to go up.
By sending my kids to private school, I am saving you money on your taxes. Youâre welcome 
I think public education should be like all other public services that we think are necessary for our society.
- Health Care
- Roads and Highways
- Police & Military
- Firefighters
and the list could go onâŚ
If you want have private ones, youâre more than welcome, but they shouldnât be paid for by taxpayers.
But we all benefit from these public services, and the rich just as much as the poor. You didnât get rich without an educated workforce, public infrastructure, law & order, rule of law, security of the person and private property. All of that was paid by all of us, because we think itâs important for our society.
You donât get to all of a sudden say that the society that made you wealthy isnât good enough, and that society should now pay for a special version of public institutions just for you.
Weâd balk at the thought of a government-funded private police force for the wealthy, or a government-funded private hospital system for the wealthy. The same applies to education.
If you look at the real successful school systems in the world, theyâre not following the American voucher system, theyâre properly funding their schools and treating teachers with respect, not contempt.
We can always take that a step further, canât we?
Those who have no children in school at all subsidize the school system the most. Not very uncomfortable, it seems.
Those who have no problems with crime subsidize the police. Those who are healthy subsidize the health care system. Those who donât drive subsidize the highway. Those who donât have houses burning subsidize the fire department.
But thatâs the choice we made to be part of a society that does something for the good of all of us, rather than just a few. If we didnât, then we wouldnât be having any LNG development encouraged by the government, would we?
Is that uncomfortable? Weâre going to subsidize an LNG industry because we believe itâs the right thing to do for all of us, not just a few? I donât find that any more uncomfortable than subsidizing a public education system.
Some neighbourhoods hire their own private security. When they do this, they donât lose the right to regular policing. Basic policing is available to all, but I can pay to get better policing.
In healthcare, there are many tests and medications that need to be paid for. As a consumer, I can choose to pay for these or not. It doesnât mean that I lose access to all healthcare. Basic healthcare is available to all, in many cases for free, but I can pay to get better healthcare.
If there is a choice between a toll road and a regular road, I can choose the toll road. That doesnât mean that I will be denied access to the regular road.
Its not quite as clear cut as you thinkâŚ
Sorry, couldnât resist.
Hereâs a video of some students signing kumbaya:
Yup, youâre making my point. Thanks.
You left out the next sentence when you quoted me. âIf you want have private ones, youâre more than welcome, but they shouldnât be paid for by taxpayers.â
Yes, you can pay for private policing. You can pay for private fire protection, or for a private toll road. You can also pay for private health care. But that doesnât mean that you should expect that to be subsidized.
Why do you think that this changes when it comes to education? Sure, youâre more than welcome to put your kids in a non-publicly-funded school. But why do you expect it to be subsidized?
I donât know why youâre trying to spin that itâs okay for private schools to receive some tax money, @investor, as a taxpayer I wouldnât be thrilled to see public money being used to fund something thatâs not owned by taxpayers.
If you insist that it okay to send public money to private schools, then maybe the Ministry of Education should put a leash or two, a couple feet each, on those publicly funded private schools, and allow the government to dictate on its finances.
Better yet, you mentioned âtopping upâ, right? Maybe lets pay a little more in taxes on the rest of the public school system so that every kids get a private school quality education. Beats paying $20,000+ a year, right?
OK I donât think you fully read what I said. Let me try again. If I pay for private security in my neighbourhood, I am effectively âtopping upâ the policing provided by the government. When I pay for this security, I donât lose access to the existing policing. I can still call 911.
What you are suggesting is the equivalent of saying this. âWhen you buy additional private security, you no longer have access to the police forceâ.
In a perfect world, I completely agree with you. However, as long as public education is run by the likes of the provincial government and the BCTF, the standards will always be lower than those found in the private sector. You simply wonât get a âprivate school quality educationâ in the vast majority of public schools, regardless of funding.
You know whatâs a real crazy waste of tax money? Having publicly-funded religious school systems.
I work for a district that has schools literally next door to Catholic schools. Heck one of our schools is actually in the same building as a Catholic school.
Seems like an awful waste of money and duplication.
I think weâd be a bit upset if we did the same thing with other public institutions. How about Catholic fire department? Jewish hospitals? hehehe, I know, that they all existed in history, but when they became publicly-funded, then they ceased to exist. Not so for Catholic schools, it seems.
My first employer was a Catholic school. It doesnât exist anymore, because Newfoundland got its shit together and got rid of that. Alberta doesnât seem to have the appetite for such a move, though.
Iâm still waiting for a Jedi school. Seems more useful.
No, thatâs not what I said at all. I didnât suggest that.
Go back and re-read and youâll see that I said youâre more than welcome to pay for private services. But you shouldnât expect those private services to be subsidized.
Private schools tend to be much leaner, more efficient operations. They have fewer support staff and teachers that are paid less, yet they tend to have much happier employees.
An excellent use of public funds. Again, youâre welcome 
No - what you suggested was that when I pay extra for a private service, I should lose all access to the basic-level public service.
I will never understand Albertaâs need for a normal public school and Catholic public school. Morinville back then only have a Catholic school system, and every students in that city were subject to religious education whether they like it or not.