Madam, – It is patently clear, with money running out, that the State would be better off if its citizens topped up the dwindling education budget with private contributions. This may come in the form of third-level fees and registration fees, but also private primary and secondary school fees.
We know that many people cannot afford to pay for private second-level education (fee-paying schools or grind schools) and that the current third-level funding model is unsustainable, at least in the short term. Muireann Lynch (October 30th) mistakenly concludes that those who are able (or who have previously been able) to afford second-level fees and the people who can afford full third-level fees are one and the same group.
If Ms Lynch’s proposal was enacted, it would serve to deter investment in education, which is surely counterproductive. The State currently gives tax relief for college fees because it is recognised as a more preferable way to spend one’s money than on sun holidays or games consoles.
Introducing a system where the payment of private secondary school fees means the levying of third-level fees, should one be so bold as to aspire to a third-level education, would equate to levying an education tax, in direct contradiction to current tax reliefs.
The reasoning of Ms Lynch’s proposal is clear – the State lacks the competence to means-test its citizens (even though they earn money in its tax system, reside in its towns and villages and keep money in its banks).
Instead of deterring investment in education, the Government should set about finding out who the wealthy are. If it can not, then I suggest we really do need to invest in our education system. – Yours, etc,