The new Republicans in Congress have vowed to challenge Washington's role in American public education, and said they will seek to turn more power over to the states on many fronts. But one of their priorities is a new federal rule: to give parents in every state tax credits if their children are home-schooled.
Previous efforts in Congress to adopt a nationwide tax break have failed, and currently only three states -- Illinois, Louisiana and Minnesota -- allow some benefit for home schooling
I really don't see why the federal government would give tax credits to pay for someone to not use their local schools? It does sound like the typical Republican proposal though - more spending with no effect on most of the country. Additionally, its an area the states should handle, especially since your local taxes pay for schools. Am I missing something?
5 comments:
My parents used to lobby the state for years about tax credits for private schooling. I think that's fair. If you aren't using the schools, you don't think you should get a break on funding them?
That's like saying you should get a tax credit if you never call 911 or your house never sets on fire. Why should you pay for firefighters or roads if you don't use them?
My real point, though, was exactly what you're sort of hinting at. It's a STATE issue. While I wouldn't vote for a tax credit at the state level, I find it less offensive than at the federal level. You could also make the argument that better schools improves home values and still has some positive use for people who homeschool. But then shouldn't single people and senior citizens without kids also get the tax credits?
Surely we can all agree that the only appropriate body to give such a tax credit would be a state legislature. But after that, I think it's a difficult question where there is no right answer.
The analogy to 911 or firefighters is an imperfect analogy that is much more easily applied to paying a health care tax. It doesn't work for education because the credit would be only if you did not use the public schools. It would only apply in the case where you've made an affirmative choice and if you abandoned that choice, you would no longer get the credit. With 911 or firefighters, even if you've "made the choice" you've not had to put your money where your mouth is. Once an accident happens, you may still call 911 and still get the service of the firefighters. Furthermore, if you're paying private school tuition or paying to homeschool your children, you are making a parallel (though not equal) outlay of funds, whereas, if you choose not to use 911 or firefighters, you're not making a parallel outlay. Now, you certainly could make an absurdist argument on how one might create their own fire department, etc. but for most individuals, this would not apply.
However, I think I might ultimately be persuaded against the tax credit on the basis that everyone benefits from a public education system. These benefits may not be too apparent today with the fledgling public school system. Which makes it even more important not to take funding away from these public schools in the form of tax credits.
In any case, it's an interesting debate that I think states should have or at least consider. Well-reasoned arguments can be raised on both sides. What is beyond reason however, is the party that decries the overreaching of the federal government and argues for state's rights and local control, attempting to pull a liberal trick and use the tax code to influence and/or reward a certain behavior.
Burnsy, why to you call it a liberal trick to "use the tax code to influence and/or reward a certain behavior."
That doesn't make sense to me as liberals would have a lot to say about how conservatives and neo-conservatives do that very thing. You seemed for the most part even handed until that sentence. I would say depending on one's political ideology, the "wrong" group is using "the tax code to influence and/or reward a certain behavior."
@Teri
I have absolutely zero interest of being even-handed on this blog. I was simply analyzing the issue as I see it. As far as liberals complaining about conservatives doing the same thing vis-a-vis the tax code? I'm sure that's your point of view, it just isn't my point of view, nor is it correct. As an avowed liberal, I feel it is well within my prerogative to point out one of the aspects of liberalism I find annoying, even if as an aside. Using taxes to influence behavior is primarily a liberal trait, in my opinion... and it annoys me to no end.
Post a Comment