Tuition Tax Credits: Rhetoric and Reality
Posted by Tom on September 13th, 2006Yesterday, an anonymous reader commented:
EVERY voucher/tax credit proposal in Utah since 2002 or so has had a means-testing component to it so how can you say that the Utah Taxpayers Association’s comment bore only passing resemblance to previous legislation?
It’s a fair question.
Yes, tuition tax credit bills in the past few years have had means testing. Governor Huntsman indicated he wouldn’t sign one otherwise.
One foot in sea and one on shore
I’m not suggesting that previous bills didn’t have means testing, but that Mr. Jerman’s description of means testing was different than the laws that were proposed. He described a program where only the economically disadvantaged would receive the credit and those who are currently able to send their children to private school without assistance would not be eligible for (or even desire) the benefit. My concern is not specific to Mr. Jerman (although it appeared in that context), but rather to much of the public debate on tuition tax credits: what he was selling and what I’ve read in proposed legislation are not consistent.
Rep. Ferrin’s 2005 bill (HB 39) provided for 50% of private school for tuition, up to a maximum of $2,000 for all students, and up to a total of 100% or $4,000 for students in low-income households. The second substitute of the same bill provided greater benefit for middle-income families and less of a benefit for low-income families.
In 2006, HB 184 was introduced offering even less money to disadvantaged students than 2005 HB 39 2S while maintaining the previously proposed middle-income benefit.
The Carson Smith Special Needs Scholarship (Utah Code 53A-1a-701, etc.) was seen by some as a trial run for tuition tax credits, and has no means testing. Last session’s HB 181 (now Utah Code 53A-1-612) offers a voucher for remediating high school students who fail the UBSCT multiple times. It also has no provision for means testing.
To one thing constant never
I’m not opposed to a voucher or refundable tax credit allowing low-income families access to private school. I do not support a similar benefit for upper income households. I’m uncomfortable that the rhetoric and the legislation don’t match.
Who says upcoming legislation will be identical to previous legislation? The legislation has changed every year, which is always the case with major policy initiatives. To acccuse proponents of being dishonest (which is what you are doing) when you haven’t seen the latest iteration isn’t exactly fair.
Just because the UBSCT voucher and the Carson Smith voucher weren’t means tested doesn’t mean the broader voucher won’t be. The UBSCT voucher is targeted towards those students who are struggling regardless of family income and was in response to the board’s request for additional funding for remediation. One of the several premises behind the UBSCT voucher is that taxpayers don’t pay anything until the student passes UBSCT, in contrast to the board’s proposal for additional funding with no guarantees that the students would pass.
Voucher opponents have always argued that vouchers will only be used by the rich and the easy to educate. Like the broader, means-tested voucher, the UBSCT voucher is targeted towards the more difficult to educate. The same is true for Carson Smith.
Summary: all three vouchers are targeted towards the generally more difficult and expensive to educate.
Left by anon on September 13th, 2006