New Federal Tax Credit Boosts School Choice—but Blue States Face Big Decision

  • Thread starter Thread starter uncmba
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 17
  • Views: 221
  • Politics 

uncmba

Exceptional Member
Messages
120
A new tax credit to support private schools was in the BBB. Here are some details from the WSJ:

School-choice advocates won a major victory with President Trump’s tax megabill—but it comes with a catch.

The federal government will now subsidize private-school tuition, via unusually generous tax credits for donations to nonprofits. However, governors must opt into the program. Democratic-led states may reject it, derailing school-choice advocates’ goal for a nationwide effort.

Now comes a protracted debate at the state level. Progressives and public-school groups object to funding private schools and say the new program will hurt public education. Supporters say the money will give families options outside of their neighborhood school.

“There will be a lot of pressure in blue states not to opt in,” said John Schilling, an adviser to the American Federation for Children, a leading champion of the legislation.

Vladimir Kogan, a political-science professor at Ohio State University, said the situation now is analogous to Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid, which some Republican-led states rejected. “This is going to be the blue-state equivalent,” he said.

For decades, conservatives tried and failed to get Washington to provide financial backing to private schools. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan advocated for tax credits, while George W. Bush wanted vouchers for low-income children. The recent megabill offered a chance to fold school choice into a broader package.

The law, enacted earlier this month, will soon allow taxpayers to redirect a portion of their tax bill to nonprofit scholarship-granting organizations or SGOs. The taxpayer could write a check of up to $1,700 to an SGO but get that full amount back via a reduction of the same amount in their income taxes, instead of a regular tax deduction for the donation. It is a donation that doesn’t ultimately cost the donor anything.

The SGO would then issue stipends to families for private-school tuition, among other permitted educational expenses. Families are eligible to receive scholarships if their income is up to three times the median in the area.

The legislation says that generally governors will decide whether SGOs in their state are eligible to receive federally subsidized donations. This will be an easy call for most Republican governors, many of whom have backed private-school vouchers in their own states.

For Democratic governors, the calculation will likely be more complicated. They will face pressure from school associations, including teachers unions, to opt out of the new federal tax credit.

“It’s a distraction from what really needs to happen,” said David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association. “They use it to cloak their vicious, savage cuts to public education.” He added that voters recently rejected school-choice measures in three states.

On the other hand, states are usually reluctant to turn down federal money, and ultimately about 40 states, including a number of red ones, have expanded Medicaid.

 
A new tax credit to support private schools was in the BBB. Here are some details from the WSJ:

School-choice advocates won a major victory with President Trump’s tax megabill—but it comes with a catch.

The federal government will now subsidize private-school tuition, via unusually generous tax credits for donations to nonprofits. However, governors must opt into the program. Democratic-led states may reject it, derailing school-choice advocates’ goal for a nationwide effort.

Now comes a protracted debate at the state level. Progressives and public-school groups object to funding private schools and say the new program will hurt public education. Supporters say the money will give families options outside of their neighborhood school.

“There will be a lot of pressure in blue states not to opt in,” said John Schilling, an adviser to the American Federation for Children, a leading champion of the legislation.

Vladimir Kogan, a political-science professor at Ohio State University, said the situation now is analogous to Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid, which some Republican-led states rejected. “This is going to be the blue-state equivalent,” he said.

For decades, conservatives tried and failed to get Washington to provide financial backing to private schools. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan advocated for tax credits, while George W. Bush wanted vouchers for low-income children. The recent megabill offered a chance to fold school choice into a broader package.

The law, enacted earlier this month, will soon allow taxpayers to redirect a portion of their tax bill to nonprofit scholarship-granting organizations or SGOs. The taxpayer could write a check of up to $1,700 to an SGO but get that full amount back via a reduction of the same amount in their income taxes, instead of a regular tax deduction for the donation. It is a donation that doesn’t ultimately cost the donor anything.

The SGO would then issue stipends to families for private-school tuition, among other permitted educational expenses. Families are eligible to receive scholarships if their income is up to three times the median in the area.

The legislation says that generally governors will decide whether SGOs in their state are eligible to receive federally subsidized donations. This will be an easy call for most Republican governors, many of whom have backed private-school vouchers in their own states.

For Democratic governors, the calculation will likely be more complicated. They will face pressure from school associations, including teachers unions, to opt out of the new federal tax credit.

“It’s a distraction from what really needs to happen,” said David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association. “They use it to cloak their vicious, savage cuts to public education.” He added that voters recently rejected school-choice measures in three states.

On the other hand, states are usually reluctant to turn down federal money, and ultimately about 40 states, including a number of red ones, have expanded Medicaid.

Great
We need more White Christian based schools in NC
 
The way I read it, Grandparents could write a check for up to $1,700 to their Grandchild's school, and get that full amount back on their tax bills. And yes Christian schools would be included.

But only if Governor Stein agrees to the scheme.
 
This is not directly related to this topic so feel free to call me a hypocrite for posting this here, but I'm at the stage of life where I can really see the significance of generational wealth. And I don't mean billionaires. I mean the difference in opportunities and security between (a) those families with sufficient resources at the grandparent level to remove most of the financial pressure from those at the child-rearing level, including but not limited to private secondary school and college, and (b) those who don't. Life is a completely different experience for those two cohorts.

I don't know where that line would be drawn. $5 million in liquidish assets? $10 million? The point is that MAGA has somehow convinced itself that Trump and the Pubs in Congress are on the side of the 98% (total guess) of Americans below that line. When the reality is they're continuing to enact policies at every level that benefit those above that line.

I still get queasy when I think about the concept of populism, but this is why right wing populism has always seemed particularly absurd to me. And the change being discussed in this thread is just one more example of it.
 
Not just the heritage of wealth. My wife used to work for the More at Four program in NC. One of their areas of concentration for eligibility was the educational background of the parents. There are still kids growing up with illiterate parents and not a book in the house. Even if they dig in and do well in school, do you think they will have much of a chance at a background that prepares them to go further than high school? We know some do but a lot don't. A virtual certainty is that those that get the chance and don't make it will not get the second and third chances of an affluent family.
 
Last edited:
$1700 per year doesn’t seem like it would make much of a dent in private school tuition. Even the lower cost (and crappy) Christian schools I know of are at least $12k a year. The best privates locally are $30k.
 
Not just the heritage of wealth. My wife used to work for the More at Four program in NC. One of their areas of concentration for eligibility was the educational background of the parents. There are still kids growing up with illiterate parents and not a book in the house. Even if they dig in and do well in school, do you think they will have much of a chance at a background that prepares them to go further than high school? We know some do but a lot don't. A virtual certainty is that those that get the chance and don't make it will the the second and third chances of an affluent family.
Absolutely. I don't doubt that parental literacy and the presence of books in the house is one of the highest correlators to financial security in adulthood. I'm talking about something a little different, though. When parents don't have to worry about educational expenses for their kids because the grandparents are wealthy enough to cover the most exclusive level of education available for the grandkids, it opens a world of opportunities not just for the grandkids but for the parents as well. It's something more than financial security. It's the ability to perpetuate the type of wealth that makes one able to take risky chances without worrying about what that might mean for the future. It's literally a different world, and I'm convinced 99.999% of MAGAs have no idea they're voting to perpetuate it.
 
Not just the heritage of wealth. My wife used to work for the More at Four program in NC. One of their areas of concentration for eligibility was the educational background of the parents. There are still kids growing up with illiterate parents and not a book in the house. Even if they dig in and do well in school, do you think they will have much of a chance at a background that prepares them to go further than high school? We know some do but a lot don't. A virtual certainty is that those that get the chance and don't make it will not get the second and third chances of an affluent family.
My ex was a middle school Teacher. She always had a couple of girls from not so geat families that by the time they were like 13 they were practically managing the household-School work just was not in the cards
 
My ex was a middle school Teacher. She always had a couple of girls from not so geat families that by the time they were like 13 they were practically managing the household-School work just was not in the cards
My wife is a middle school teacher at a title 1 charter school. Prior to that she taught at title 1 public schools in Los Angeles and Cleveland. She has taught many homeless kids who come to school after sleeping a car with their mother and siblings, kids who are basically raising their younger siblings, and young girls who have to fend off sexual advances from their mothers’ boyfriends. Not having books in the home are way down the list of problems these kids bring to school.
 
This is not directly related to this topic so feel free to call me a hypocrite for posting this here, but I'm at the stage of life where I can really see the significance of generational wealth. And I don't mean billionaires. I mean the difference in opportunities and security between (a) those families with sufficient resources at the grandparent level to remove most of the financial pressure from those at the child-rearing level, including but not limited to private secondary school and college, and (b) those who don't. Life is a completely different experience for those two cohorts.

I don't know where that line would be drawn. $5 million in liquidish assets? $10 million? The point is that MAGA has somehow convinced itself that Trump and the Pubs in Congress are on the side of the 98% (total guess) of Americans below that line. When the reality is they're continuing to enact policies at every level that benefit those above that line.

I still get queasy when I think about the concept of populism, but this is why right wing populism has always seemed particularly absurd to me. And the change being discussed in this thread is just one more example of it.
Its shocking to me sometimes until I realize that the majority of Americans were on the side of Rockefeller and Standard Oil during the anti-trust episodes. Rockefeller had literally done more than any human who ever lived to inflict poverty and slavery on a populace and most still loved him for it and saw his business advantages as fairly won.

Americans love a rich old man. Always have and always will.
 
Last edited:
Its shocking to me sometimes until I realize that the majority of Americans were on the side of Rockefeller and Standard Oil during the anti-trust episodes. Rockefeller had literally done more than any human who ever lived to inflict poverty and slavery on a populace and most still loved him for it and saw his business advantages as fairly won.

Americans love a rich old man. Always have and always will.
And the rich old men keep laughing at them.
 
I still get queasy when I think about the concept of populism, but this is why right wing populism has always seemed particularly absurd to me. And the change being discussed in this thread is just one more example of it.
Factor in propaganda and you'll get it. RNC is likely the most advanced propaganda machine, ever. And, for the moment, it has a "big beautiful" megaphone to blare their BS to those most vulnerable to deceit.
 
Its shocking to me sometimes until I realize that the majority of Americans were on the side of Rockefeller and Standard Oil during the anti-trust episodes. Rockefeller had literally done more than any human who ever lived to inflict poverty and slavery on a populace and most still loved him for it and saw his business advantages as fairly won.

Americans love a rich old man. Always have and always will.
Has to do with that elusive American Dream. Y'all do know that everyone is born equal in the USofA. Work hard and reach for the stars. That simple.
 
This is not directly related to this topic so feel free to call me a hypocrite for posting this here, but I'm at the stage of life where I can really see the significance of generational wealth. And I don't mean billionaires. I mean the difference in opportunities and security between (a) those families with sufficient resources at the grandparent level to remove most of the financial pressure from those at the child-rearing level, including but not limited to private secondary school and college, and (b) those who don't. Life is a completely different experience for those two cohorts.

I don't know where that line would be drawn. $5 million in liquidish assets? $10 million? The point is that MAGA has somehow convinced itself that Trump and the Pubs in Congress are on the side of the 98% (total guess) of Americans below that line. When the reality is they're continuing to enact policies at every level that benefit those above that line.

I still get queasy when I think about the concept of populism, but this is why right wing populism has always seemed particularly absurd to me. And the change being discussed in this thread is just one more example of it.
This is a great observation, and one that I've seen (and I'm sure many others here have as well). Since I was a kid I've known people (and I'll just go ahead and say that it was mostly Republicans, as most people I knew growing up were Republican) who would complain about "welfare queens" and poor people who lived off "their tax money" and so on, yet these exact same people lived on what I call family welfare - they were lucky enough to have parents or grandparents or even great-grandparents who had money, and they received plenty of financial assistance (welfare) from those people. As in people who got cars, appliances, even houses that were paid for entirely or mostly by older relatives with money, and got assistance in paying their bills, and so on. And yet these same people never saw any connection (or felt any hypocrisy) between their family-supplied welfare and others having to use government welfare because they weren't lucky enough to be born with affluent relatives who could pay for things they otherwise might not be able to get themselves.
 
$1700 per year doesn’t seem like it would make much of a dent in private school tuition. Even the lower cost (and crappy) Christian schools I know of are at least $12k a year. The best privates locally are $30k.
Agree - but this reads as if the annual donation all of those schools 'strongly encourage' shifts from a tax deduction to a tax credit?
 
Back
Top