@steve203 - Did you listen to, or read the podcast transcript?
The kind of school choice they focus on is allowing public school students to attend other public schools within a geographic boundary. For example, my kid’s school district allows us to open enroll in any school within the district.
The Atlantic article? Yes, I did.
But do the kids have the means to get to another school, or is their only choice where the school bus takes them?
In the vast majority of cases, like Michigan, “school choice” is code for non-government schools, either charters or private. The difference between “charter” and “private” is charters are privately owned and operated, but required to accept all applicants and are funded at the same level as public schools. Private schools can discriminate among applicants, and charge the families to educate their spawn.
Steve
That’s a fair point. Allowing students to enroll in other schools doesn’t solve the transportation challenges. Probably only makes sense in urban settings with more transportation options.
That’s also fair. I think the point of the article, and me posting it, is to show that there are other ways to allow choice to parents and improve academic achievement. Allowing open enrollment in public schools is one way of doing that.
What about MY tax dollars? If you want to have a say in where your tax dollars go, why do I not get the same treatment? Is it just because I might disagree with you?
School vouchers are nothing more than a backdoor way of religious indoctrination. We have a separation of church and state in this country. That is why this, in particular, is not an acceptable way to spend tax payer money.
Which church/religion do you think those school vouchers are establishing?
Separation of church and state is not law. Once again, only your opinion on how to spend tax dollars is correct? Sounds a lot like authoritarianism.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This is the foundation for the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as erecting “a wall between church and state,” which “must be kept high and impregnable”. A Washington Post analysis found that billions of taxpayer dollars are now funding tuition at religious schools across the nation.
Tax payer dollars going to religious institutions is not allowed by our Constitution. There is nothing authoritarianism about this.
How is it okay to exempt religious institutions from paying certain taxes that everyone else pays? That’s just a roundabout way of “funding” religion. Ever hear of parsonage rules? It’s absurd to give special tax benefits to clergy and not to college professors? Or any other group not associated with religion. In essence it is taxpayer dollars almost directly funding religion.
And if you look at the vouchers, in essence, aren’t they giving the money to the KID, or to the kid’s parents, to spend on education? Not all the vouchers are used for religious schools, many are used for other types of private schools. And since every single child, of any religion, or of no religion, is eligible for a voucher, then why would it be a problem? It doesn’t show any preference to religion, or to any specific religion. Nor does it prevent anyone from exercising their religion as they see fit.
Not-for-profit organizations, like museums, are tax exempt.
That is how I see it. Fifty years ago “parochiaid” was not about religion. It was about white people keeling their spawn in overwhelmingly white schools, which, at that time, were mostly church run.
Now there are a variety of private schools that will indoctrinate students in any of a variety of ideologies. If a parent can find an all white school, that teaches that all good things in the world were done by straight, white, people, and slaves benefited from being slaves, a voucher would help pay for that school, rather than the kids going to a public school that includes even the slightest hint of the boogymen of the moment “DEI” and “CRT”.
Steve
As Steve stated, that is a non-profit exemption, not a religious exemption.
It is indeed a gray area - which is why it has likely continued without SCOTUS intervention at this point.
The problem is that it has basically become a de facto funding of religion. For example in my state, 90% of all private schools are religious. Nationwide, that stat stands around 84%. In most counties nationwide, there isn’t a single private school that isn’t religious. So while it may not show a direct preference, it is absolutely an overwhelming preference for religious education - and most likely the Judeo Christian sort.
That’s exactly right - the US tax code, through legislation, funds religion which some find abhorrent and anti-constitutional.
One of the voucher (or anti-voucher) arguments is that while every, or at least most, families could get a voucher, it is the well-to-do families that benefit more since the vouchers do not cover the total cost of the private school. If a voucher only covers 70% or 50% (or less) of the cost of a private school, that still puts it out of reach for the poor and working class family so in effect the subsidy goes more to the wealthy.
Pete
How does parsonage have anything at all to do with non-profit status? Does the CEO of a non-profit museum get parsonage tax benefits?
My opinion is that the non-profit status of an institution should have no bearing at all on the employees of that institution.
I don’t understand the question. The tax status of most religious groups is non-profit. As such, they benefit from not having to taxes like other non-profits. Employees are treated the same - if they are paid income, they pay income taxes on it. It is only the institution that is non-profit, not the employees.
Apparently.
Can you explain why this IRS regulation says “minister” and does not say “minister” and/or “museum director” and/or “homeless shelter administrator”, etc? This despite the church, the museum, and the homeless shelter, etc all being non-profit institutions.
Snark isn’t becoming.
Why does this rub you in all the wrong ways?
As it pertains to lodging for other professions when provided by the employer:
The Exclusion for Meals and Lodging.
When an employer provides housing or lodging for an employee, the employee may be able to exclude the value of the lodging from gross income. The lodging must meet three tests: (1) The lodging must be on the employer’s business premises; (2) the employer must provide the lodging for the employer’s convenience rather than for the employee’s convenience; and (3) the employer must require the employee to accept the lodging as a condition of employment. Thus, the employee must need to live in the lodging to be able to perform the duties of the employment, as Example 10 shows. 33
So if any other non-profit meets that standard, then they too can exclude lodging from income taxes.
It doesn’t. I brought it up as a counterpoint. The complaint was that vouchers establish a religion somehow despite them being made available to all the kids (they happen to choose religious schools over other schools). So the counterpoint is that the tax code LITERALLY has sections that apply [favorably] explicitly to “ministers” and that it is a much more direct tax code favoring religion than any voucher could ever be.
This is absolutely true, and applies to non-profits and to for-profits. But they cannot exclude an employee’s personal residence (used by the minister, their spouse, and their children) as can be done for ministers. For example, when I did business travel, the hotels and meals were excluded from my income, but my home was not excluded from my income.
Sorry about the snark, I usually can restrain myself, and I should have removed it before posting.
And I wonder how per/student spending compares over time/between big cities…like Chicago.
Based upon results, the Chicago school budgets must have been cut many times…NOT!
Cheers!
Murph
Kill, steal, lie under oath, the only illegal things.
The rest are little ideas to prop up smaller men.