captain_spalding said:

diddly-squat said:

It’s important to remember that $1 out of funding for provide schools doesn’t necessarily equal $1 of free cash flow that can be otherwise saved or spent

it’s not a zero sum game

You’re right. If people pay $1 less in tax, they’re not necessarily going to dash to the shops and spend it.

They may decide to, say, put it in the bank.

Which is not a bad thing, either. There’s been a lot of comment over the years about how Australians are rather crap at building their savings.

If people have an improved bank account behind them, then, while they didn’t spend that $1, they may feel more confident about spending some $ that they get in the near future.

Cash flow can still improve, but perhaps not imediately.

that’s not really what I meant,

my point is that funding private education goes some way to lessening the burden on the public system (it’s similar to healthcare). Removing incentives that enable people to access private education will very likely result in people having to make an economic decision that increases load in the public system.

So the question needs to be, what is the minimum about of funding for private schools that maximises funding per student in the public system.

It’s the same with healthcare, the same with higher education…