So I’m going to start with a bit of a disclaimer here. I am not a fan of Katie Hopkins (is anyone) or Katie Price, and I cannot stand Big Brother. However the recent bust up between the pair hit the headlines this week when Katie P revealed that the transport for her disabled son Harvey to attend school each day is paid for by the taxpayer, despite her being reportedly worth £40 million.
Katie H of course wasn’t happy about this. I think most people could have predicted that. She felt that if someone could afford to pay for it, they why shouldn’t they.
Now, one of the amazing things about the UK is that every single child, no matter what their needs, is offered an education. If that education is outside a certain distance, because of over subscription or because there isn’t a school close enough to cater to your child’s needs, then the local authority will fund the transport and that is what has happened to Katie’s child, Harvey.
Katie Hopkins argument is that if you can afford to pay, then you shouldn’t be taking advantage of the tax payer and should pay for it herself.
However, I don’t agree. Katie Price herself is a tax payer, and with a reported £40million worth, she has paid her fair amount of tax – I would imagine far outweighing the cost of Harvey’s transport. She continues to work and pay into the system.
There are also so many services that are free at point of contact for every single person in the country – schools, NHS, police, ambulance and fire service. I wonder if Katie Hopkins pays for any of these services – she can afford it after all, and I actually don’t see the difference.
I think its great that all these things are available to us without means testing – I also think that if they were means tested it would mean that children and adults alike miss out on some of these vital services. The families who pay the most tax would find they were then paying again to use things – would you pay into a system that you were then unable to take advantage of when you needed it most? Of course not!
We all play a part in keeping the country running, but the highest paying tax payers are the ones that pay in the most – its seems totally unfair that they should be unable to access services for disabled children – the very services which their taxes help to fund.
Transport for Harvey’s school isn’t a luxury, it is a necessity – it is the closest school that can cater to his complex needs. I for one am grateful that in this country these services exist for everyone. Yes, Harvey’s needs mean he costs the tax payer more than the average child, but no-one would dream of saying her other children shouldn’t be allowed to attend local schools (I have no idea if they do or not!) because she can afford to pay for them to go to an independent school. Is there really a difference?
What do you think? Should Katie Price foot the bill herself?