Once again, your definition of equal doesn't fit the dictionary. As for the rest, it's clear you aren't even close to showing it to be a fact.And if you'd change the regulations, the government would still run it but it'd be fair. Funny how that works.
I am talking about property tax. Not what they chose to pay. You can't as a poor person just pay more in property taxes to get a better education for your children. That's the systemic part of the whole education system I am talking about, just if you're still confused. Punishing the children of poor people for being poor, it's always the side you want to be on in a discussion.
Pinnacle of stupid argumentation reached.
And I have absolutely no problem with that, that's also not public education but private. It is subsidized by the government though, so double benefits for the rich, woop woop.
You ignore all of the evidence, that's not on me, that's on you.
Stop with the straw man.
Well, equal punishment would mean people are equally punished. Receiving a fine of 100$ has an equal impact on one that has a few million dollars sitting in his bank account compared to someone who has twenty dollars at all? You're defining being equally punished very favorably for the rich. Interesting that you think it's ok for them to break laws and don't fear punishment. It's telling. I mean, it's not surprising, considering your arguments so far, but to be so straightforward about it is interesting.
So far, you called it equal when they get more of a say in politics. You called it equal when the system provides them with overall better education. And now you're calling it equal when they receive the same fines despite not being impacted the same way.
Is this a game of semantics? Should I use the word equitable to get my point across?
I said it was about marketing and gave you the definition which prompted you to call religion marketing because you're reading comprehension sucks balls.
Fuck no, I am not going to help you bring the world down to its knees.