It seems like every year in Utah, we have a legislative bill designed to implement some form of tuition voucher or tax credit or "scholarship" for k-12 private school tuition. This year was no exception.
The 45-day legislative session is now over, and thankfully, this year's conjuration of a "tuition tax credit/voucher/scholarship for private school tuition" bill has been defeated yet again. Notice how there is no maximum income level after which vouchers would no longer be offered, just a scaled level for the amount of the vouchers where even those with the highest incomes would still be eligible for a $500 "scholarship".
It seems that this issue will never go away, and there are many well-funded groups pushing to get a voucher program implemented under the guise of "choice" in education. Here's a link to a recent article in the Salt Lake Tribune about one such group's efforts to defeat legislators who oppose vouchers.
There's one little nugget of information in the article that I just couldn't stop thinking about.
Small-business owner Mark Jacobs is one candidate expecting some of that pro-voucher cash.
The group recruited Jacobs to challenge Allen, who runs a nonprofit foundation supporting the Davis School District.
"They persuaded me to give it a shot," said Jacobs, who called school vouchers his No. 1 priority.
"I've decided to run to help encourage people to consider school choice," he said. "I'm very passionate about offering alternatives to parents."
Jacobs, who has 11 children with his wife, Darcy, previously ran for the 1st Congressional Seat in 2002. He lost to U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop. (emphasis mine)
Jacobs is a voucher supporter? Well, no shit! I wonder why. Could it be that he stands to save quite a chunk of cash if he just happens to send his eleven offspring to private school?
Anyway, like I said, I couldn't stop thinking about this all week, so I penned a letter to the editor a couple of days ago.
I have a question for education voucher supporters. However, before raising the question, please allow me to describe a hypothetical scenario under current tax laws, but with a voucher program implemented.
In this scenario, we have two tax payers: Don and Mark. They each have $100,000 in taxable income before dependent exemptions. Don, being childless, pays $7,000 in income tax which, in Utah, is to be used for public education purposes. Mark has, oh, let's say eleven, dependent children. He receives a $2,400 income exemption for each child, so his taxable income is reduced to $73,600. His tax is now $5,152.
At this point, Don could argue that it's unfair for him to pay more into the public education coffers than Mark, whose eleven children are all eligible to attend public schools. However, Don agrees with Mark that funding public education is a burden that society as a whole, including those with no children, should share. Therefore, Don doesn't bicker about this inequity, at least for now.
However, Mark sends all eleven of his children to private schools and is eligible to receive tuition vouchers. Based on his income, Mark is eligible for the minimum voucher amount of $500 per child and receives $5500. The state has now paid Mark $348 more than he paid in income taxes! For all intents and purposes, Mark has now contributed nothing (in the form of income tax) to the public education coffers.
So, here is my question: how is this even remotely fair?
I've proffered similar scenarios several times in the past few months to voucher supporters and have yet to receive any type of reasonable response.
Now, if we really want to give low-income parents "choice" in education, why don't we set up a scholarship fund specifically for those who are low-income? Rich people already have choice; now they just want me to pay for it.
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of rich people with a penchant for breeding forcing me to pay more and more to educate their ubiquitous progeny.