It's a matter of the degree of support. Would it be wrong, in your view, for a wealthy tax-paying parent to invest in their own child above and beyond what their taxes provide for society's children?
If a wealthy tax paying parent is votes against taxes to support programs like offering free lunches to children in schools, so their children can have a 'better' education, then I think that is wrong.
I went to a wealthy private high school. 15 years later, most of the children from wealthy parents didn't amount to much. The top 50% work a high level role at their parent's company (probably taking the job from someone more skilled). At worst, they are still supported by their parents in their 30s, career-less. Only the top 5% multiplied their parent's wealth.
The money spent on private education could have been used to support low-income students, which would reduce crime and create a more powerful middle-class.
Is it wrong? No. But it's probably not good for society or even the kids, honestly. I struggle with how I'm going to be able to keep my kids grounded and motivated given the advantages they'll have in life.
If I could change the tax code I would cut income taxes (why discourage work?) but jack up taxes on inheritances/gifts.
I went to a wealthy private high school. 15 years later, most of the children from wealthy parents didn't amount to much. The top 50% work a high level role at their parent's company (probably taking the job from someone more skilled). At worst, they are still supported by their parents in their 30s, career-less. Only the top 5% multiplied their parent's wealth.
The money spent on private education could have been used to support low-income students, which would reduce crime and create a more powerful middle-class.