"At the 100th percentile, about half of the children go to private school. At the 95th percentile, however, this proportion is much lower, with only 15 per cent of children in the private sector. While still much greater than the average, it is striking that only a minority of the affluent families in the top 5 per cent are paying for private education."
Emphasis on the last sentence. The obvious corollary being:
"While still slightly less than the average, it is striking that a significant majority of the affluent families in the top 5 per cent are benefiting from free state education."
I agree except that you said "free" state education ;-)
What this also proves, and I've written about before, is that affluent families, representing several hundred thousand children in the top 5%, 10% or whatever don't exert some magick positive influence making all state schools great, whereas a few tens of thousands of fed-up displaced children from lower deciles are expected to.
Yes I thought the "free" without strikethrough would trigger you :) Unfortunately this forum doesn't come with any fancy text features (not even bold or italic!) for comments.
But yeah, taxing a few to raise pennies while ignoring the large crowd over there (who are probably pissing themselves laughing all the way to the trust fund) is a sure indicator that this TAX policy is not about raising money, it is not an EDUCATION policy (if anything it's a counter policy), and so what's left? Envy? Red meat for cheap votes? Oh, wait, politicians.....
What I find ironic in the UCL paper is that the source for their curve - another UCL paper co-authored by one Prof Green - ( found here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09645292.2021.1874878#d1e170 ) says (section 5.1):
"At the 100th percentile, about half of the children go to private school. At the 95th percentile, however, this proportion is much lower, with only 15 per cent of children in the private sector. While still much greater than the average, it is striking that only a minority of the affluent families in the top 5 per cent are paying for private education."
Emphasis on the last sentence. The obvious corollary being:
"While still slightly less than the average, it is striking that a significant majority of the affluent families in the top 5 per cent are benefiting from free state education."
Oops... sorry... my irony meter just pegged.....
I agree except that you said "free" state education ;-)
What this also proves, and I've written about before, is that affluent families, representing several hundred thousand children in the top 5%, 10% or whatever don't exert some magick positive influence making all state schools great, whereas a few tens of thousands of fed-up displaced children from lower deciles are expected to.
Yes I thought the "free" without strikethrough would trigger you :) Unfortunately this forum doesn't come with any fancy text features (not even bold or italic!) for comments.
But yeah, taxing a few to raise pennies while ignoring the large crowd over there (who are probably pissing themselves laughing all the way to the trust fund) is a sure indicator that this TAX policy is not about raising money, it is not an EDUCATION policy (if anything it's a counter policy), and so what's left? Envy? Red meat for cheap votes? Oh, wait, politicians.....