why do our tax dollars subsidize private schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some recent threads about fairness/equity in terms of school offerings got me thinking...why don't private schools have to pay their fair share of taxes?

These local private schools, some costing almost $40k per year, (complete with multi-million dollar fundraising drives, capital campaigns, sports complexes, performing arts facilities, fields, beautiful facilities, and on and on) are exempt from paying a single dime in property taxes on their lavish campuses. WHY???

They are not some sort philanthropic organizations working for the greater good or something similar. They are exclusive private schools who are able to charge obscene amounts of money for tuition and ALSO collect additional multi-millions for fundraising efforts. Why, then, do the taxpayers (most of whom could not come close to paying even one of these tuition amounts) have to subsidize these schools (I say subsidize b/c every $ not collected from these schools in terms of property taxes must come from the rest of us).

If these schools had to pay the appropriate amount of property taxes then I would feel that they can provide whatever over-the-top offerings the parents are willing to pay for (a private transaction and all). But when we are subsidizing their lavish facilities, I find it obscene and vulgar.

I sometimes think that, as public school parents, we quibble with each other (or look at some additional thing that one school has that another doesn't have) but we completely MISS the larger point: private schools are there the gulf between the haves and the have-nots occur and WE are the ones subsidizing them. These schools should pay their fair share of taxes and, frankly, that money should be earmarked for use in supplementing the public school enrichment activities in the same jurisdiction. Why do we allow this type of inequity to continue?

[Anonymous]

What about universities, while we're at it?

[Anonymous]

School funding formulas are based on the number of kids attending so private school kids are not really saving the public any money. More kids= more funding. Fewer kids = less funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:School funding formulas are based on the number of kids attending so private school kids are not really saving the public any money. More kids= more funding. Fewer kids = less funding.

Except the money has to come from the taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

The word you're all reaching for is "benevolent."

Up your vocabulary, people.

[Anonymous]

It would be a good test. Charge the property tax and watch the schools close spilling tens of thousands of kids into the public school system. Bus them, feed them, find teachers and classrooms (entire schools actually- unless the states want to buy their buildings) for them. . . All with no additional tax money since those parents have already paid it. Sure the budget would be adjusted but that money would have to get shuffled from somewhere else. I'd love to see it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be a good test. Charge the property tax and watch the schools close spilling tens of thousands of kids into the public school system. Bus them, feed them, find teachers and classrooms (entire schools actually- unless the states want to buy their buildings) for them. . . All with no additional tax money since those parents have already paid it. Sure the budget would be adjusted but that money would have to get shuffled from somewhere else. I'd love to see it!

Well theoretically they would be getting extra property tax from the schools right? I do agree that if your scenario came about (and I'm not sure it would) it would be a huge burden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be a good test. Charge the property tax and watch the schools close spilling tens of thousands of kids into the public school system. Bus them, feed them, find teachers and classrooms (entire schools actually- unless the states want to buy their buildings) for them. . . All with no additional tax money since those parents have already paid it. Sure the budget would be adjusted but that money would have to get shuffled from somewhere else. I'd love to see it!

Well theoretically they would be getting extra property tax from the schools right? I do agree that if your scenario came about (and I'm not sure it would) it would be a huge burden.

But not enough to offset the amt of money it takes to educate all of the private schools kids who would now be in public schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be a good test. Charge the property tax and watch the schools close spilling tens of thousands of kids into the public school system. Bus them, feed them, find teachers and classrooms (entire schools actually- unless the states want to buy their buildings) for them. . . All with no additional tax money since those parents have already paid it. Sure the budget would be adjusted but that money would have to get shuffled from somewhere else. I'd love to see it!

Well theoretically they would be getting extra property tax from the schools right? I do agree that if your scenario came about (and I'm not sure it would) it would be a huge burden.

But not enough to offset the amt of money it takes to educate all of the private schools kids who would now be in public schools.

Probably true.

[Anonymous]

OP, why don't you instead direct your outrage to all the corporate loopholes than allow corporations to escape billions of dollars in taxes? Those cost the American taxpayer significantly more than private school exemptions. I'd be willing to bet that private schools save the taxpayers at least as much as they cost when you calculate the cost of not having to educate those additional students. I'm not sure what benefit the average taxpayer sees from allowing CEOs and major shareholders to take home more money each year because of tax savings.

[Anonymous]

Also... if you start taxing private schools, guess what the easiest thing to cut from their budgets would be? Financial aid. I'd be willing to bet that our school offers significantly more FA every year than they'd owe in taxes.

[Anonymous]

This topic seems not quite appropriate in this forum.

In theory, I do not believe that collecting more tax has any direct relationship with improvement of MCPS education quality. MCPS is a 2.2Billion budget institution.

Anonymous wrote:Some recent threads about fairness/equity in terms of school offerings got me thinking...why don't private schools have to pay their fair share of taxes?

These local private schools, some costing almost $40k per year, (complete with multi-million dollar fundraising drives, capital campaigns, sports complexes, performing arts facilities, fields, beautiful facilities, and on and on) are exempt from paying a single dime in property taxes on their lavish campuses. WHY???

They are not some sort philanthropic organizations working for the greater good or something similar. They are exclusive private schools who are able to charge obscene amounts of money for tuition and ALSO collect additional multi-millions for fundraising efforts. Why, then, do the taxpayers (most of whom could not come close to paying even one of these tuition amounts) have to subsidize these schools (I say subsidize b/c every $ not collected from these schools in terms of property taxes must come from the rest of us).

If these schools had to pay the appropriate amount of property taxes then I would feel that they can provide whatever over-the-top offerings the parents are willing to pay for (a private transaction and all). But when we are subsidizing their lavish facilities, I find it obscene and vulgar.

I sometimes think that, as public school parents, we quibble with each other (or look at some additional thing that one school has that another doesn't have) but we completely MISS the larger point: private schools are there the gulf between the haves and the have-nots occur and WE are the ones subsidizing them. These schools should pay their fair share of taxes and, frankly, that money should be earmarked for use in supplementing the public school enrichment activities in the same jurisdiction. Why do we allow this type of inequity to continue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be a good test. Charge the property tax and watch the schools close spilling tens of thousands of kids into the public school system. Bus them, feed them, find teachers and classrooms (entire schools actually- unless the states want to buy their buildings) for them. . . All with no additional tax money since those parents have already paid it. Sure the budget would be adjusted but that money would have to get shuffled from somewhere else. I'd love to see it!

Well theoretically they would be getting extra property tax from the schools right? I do agree that if your scenario came about (and I'm not sure it would) it would be a huge burden.

But not enough to offset the amt of money it takes to educate all of the private schools kids who would now be in public schools.

That's probably not true. I mean, it would be true if all of the land that the private schools are now on would sit vacant forever once the private schools closed. But that's unlikely. You're also assuming that lots and lots of private schools would close if they had to pay property taxes.

[Anonymous]

And let's tax the soup kitchens too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And let's tax the soup kitchens too!

Sidwell is a charitable enterprise?