If you want to make the world fair then, of course, you can fight for a change in taxes. And focusing on a flat rate, the same for all, no exception, might be much better than progressive rates with loopholes (hence legalised evasion, obtained by lobbying which is funded by? the richer people)... But there is even more primordial than taxes.

We all know that money influences the chances of children to get into higher education: quite clearly, having more books, having private lessons if one struggles, having access to computers and educational gadgets and activities (usually requiring equipments) will always be helpful to develop the brain but will always cost money. But the biggest threat to fair-competition is that higher education is more and more privately-owned. Getting investors in might seem at times a good idea to rationalise some spendings, or to access capital required for extensions, etc. But once investors own the schools, it means the richer people (who are the investors) are asking the poorer people to pay them for the poorer kids to have a chance (not a certainty, just a chance) to get the education the richer ones can already have. Tell me how one could even pretend that "everybody gets a fair chance, with hard work" if you can force them to give you profits before they may have a go at it?

The political speech of funding excellence with such investments is a cover-up for locking a caste-like system, in which if you're not born in the right (rich) caste, you cannot make it to the other caste. Pretending to give the poorer a chance while ensuring they're in debt (linked to your profits, which improve your own competitive advantage) so that they cannot really ever reach as high as you is not coherent with any talk of fair-play. Any advocate of "fair play through hard work" should vote for pure income-tax-funded education (in any school, no private investor and no fee, anywhere, by law. You want to reach international excellence? Raise the level in all your schools!). Note that in "income," I include any income (money that "comes in", including capital gains), not just salaries. One may also note that if a talented-but-poor kid actually thus makes it to the top this way, (s)he will then participate in funding (by taxes) for the next generation to get the same opportunities, which - I guess - would sound fair to most readers.

But most people try to provide the best for their own kids. The poorer and the richer alike. So the richer easily forget about fair-competition when it comes to give their kids an edge. Most talk about fair-play is only when one "loses." And then helping the kids also supports their short-term profits? That's obviously good asset management, but that's not fair, that's just the Law of the jungle. That's not rewarding efforts and creativity and talent, that's rewarding accumulated capital.

That foreigners might be asked to pay is a societal choice, depending on whether one supports fair international markets (i.e. globalisation is seen as beneficial by lowering the price of imports, and by providing more export opportunities) or one supports an internally-fair society fighting external enemies...