Free education isn’t altruistic

It is sad to read that an emeritus professor of religion (“Free varsity for all is unrealistic”, Letters, October 7) is unable to bring the much-vaunted compassion that most religions aspire to instil in people and, simultaneously, make inaccurate assumptions about how money works.

Just for starters, the “wealthy” made and continue to make their money on the backs of the majority of South Africans. This alone should be seen as a massive subsidy to the wealthy, given the often shockingly low levels of pay. As Balzac said: “Behind every fortune lies a crime.”

According to various sources, about R120-billion leaves our shores illicitly, through transfer pricing and other mechanisms, which at the current 28% rate of taxation should yield some R35-billion annually. The wealthy are undertaxed and a few percentage points on both high incomes and a wealth tax would similarly add a large chunk to the fiscus.

There are many instances of subsidies that are abused by the wealthy. For example, the “free” services received by corporations, in the form of externalised health and pollution costs to both people and the planet, are somehow not worth mentioning but free education to people without money is?

If corporations had to pay in full for the complete clean-up of their air, land and water pollution, the economy would grow greatly from the financial resources needed to do this. More jobs would result and save the large sums of money currently needed every year for the associated negative health effects, together with incalculable avoided suffering and death, as regularly noted in your august pages.

Corporations are sitting on cash approaching R1-trillion — surely this should be put to use locally, or taxed? One could go on, but the point is made: if the political will exists, the resources are there.

Much like making sure people have sufficient food to eat, ensuring that those who wish to be educated are able to do so is a moral imperative, not an altruistic one.