Education in the UK should only be free until 16 to take pressure of the economy

I guess I will simply respond to everything my opponent said since he squeezed his final conclusions into one paragraph. He writes:""Applying a tax toe everyone in the Uk would be worse than a school charge because the people who would pay the tax would be people who spend more money""This is not necessarily the outcome. Spreading the fee over eery tax paying citizen would greatly cut down on what every particular individual would end up spending. Since the number of tax payers in the U. K. is considerable larger than the number of 16+ year old's in school, spreading the fee to all of them would make it so each individual pays less than each student would pay and the government would still make the same amount of money. Now as to whether students in the U. K. contribute to the economy, my opponent writes:""if[sic] every year 16 year olds have £1000 less to spend then it will not affect the economy as mucha[sic] as they probably wouldnt spend it on worth while things possibly even drugs. ""I have a few points to bring against this sentence in general. 1- My opponent first makes a baseless claim that all or most 16+ year old students would not spend their money in a worthwhile way and so they have less of a right to it than everyone else. 2- I can simply apply my opponent's line of reasoning to his own case. Average taxpayers generally do not buy things that I find worthwhile. Tabloid magazines, boats, spicy ketchup, the movie 'Drive Angry'. .. .. .. Should we tax them since we do not find their vices worthwhile? This is not a valid reason. My opponent then writes:""Therefore by applying the charge would also go a small way to reducing problems with drugs in the Uk[sic]. ""My opponent makes the huge jump from the fact that students might possibly buy drugs to the idea that they necessarily will and so they would be better off without it. If someone decides to buy Bleach because they like to drink it sometimes, are you justified in taking their wallet because drinking bleach is detrimental to their health? Of course not. This reason alone does not really have much to do with our debate. We can theorize all day about what a British student or taxpayer is likely to buy with their money, but what they could conceivably buy is not reason for making decisions like the one my opponent and I are debating on. ""Widespread taxes are also likely to affect poorer people in society who already recieve[sic] about the same amount as those on benefits ""The tax that I am advocating is not a large one as my opponent seems to be arguing. Let's say for example that there are 1 million students in the U. K. , over the age of sixteen. The number of taxpayers in the U. K. is obviously higher than the number of students 16 or older(though those groups would not be mutually exclusive). Because the second group is so much larger, the individual burden on the average taxpayer would be much less than 1000 euros. Even if we take a conservative estimate and say that there are 1 million 16+ students and 30 million taxpayers, the individual raise in taxes to cover the amount of money that would be made with my opponent's choice would be about 33.33 dollars. By spreading out the cost, dropout rates would be able to be kept low while at the same time making the same amount of money.