From an ethical society stand point, yes. In the US, we agreed that we need to support everyone’s children and so we pay taxes so other people’s children can attend school.

If you refuse to help other people’s children get an education, you’re evading taxes and that is unethical.

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.