why do our tax dollars subsidize private schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP I agree that private's population wouldn't disappear with property tax or sale tax or whatever other punitive measures you wanted to stick it to us private school parents. They may change with fewer people in a traditional private. I bet you are the same person complaining about CC enrichment programs. Why do you want to punish people who are paying for two systems? Trust me the Sidwell crowd is paying is more than their fair share of taxes. Once you get into the higher income brackets, it is amazing how much you have to pay out.

[Anonymous]

We should probably tax evil colleges too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OP I agree that private's population wouldn't disappear with property tax or sale tax or whatever other punitive measures you wanted to stick it to us private school parents. They may change with fewer people in a traditional private. I bet you are the same person complaining about CC enrichment programs. Why do you want to punish people who are paying for two systems? Trust me the Sidwell crowd is paying is more than their fair share of taxes. Once you get into the higher income brackets, it is amazing how much you have to pay out.

I am the PP who said that private schools would not all close if they had to pay property taxes. I am not the OP of this thread. I am also not the OP of the thread about the CCES enrichment program. I would like to point out, however, that:

1. property taxes and income taxes are taxes, not user fees;
2. parents who send their children to private school are not actually doing the public school system a favor;
3. if you think that affluent people pay "more than their fair share of taxes", then you evidently disagree with the idea of progressive taxation;
4. if you think that requiring private businesses (which private schools are) to pay property taxes is punitive, then you evidently regard paying taxes as punishment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The reason to focus on private schools is b/c of their unique position. I cannot support the idea of providing a tax-payer supported tax break to the very private schools who b/c of their exclusivity shut out most kids. You want exclusivity and an upper hand in education/college admissions, fine. Just pay your fair share and no one can complain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The reason to focus on private schools is b/c of their unique position. I cannot support the idea of providing a tax-payer supported tax break to the very private schools who b/c of their exclusivity shut out most kids. You want exclusivity and an upper hand in education/college admissions, fine. Just pay your fair share and no one can complain.

If you want to tax private schools, then you need to rebate the tax burden private parents are paying to support schools they're not using. Can't have it both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you want to tax private schools, then you need to rebate the tax burden private parents are paying to support schools they're not using. Can't have it both ways.

Why, exactly? Given that

1. Taxes for public schools are not user fees (everybody pays taxes for public schools, regardless of whether or not they have children in the public schools), and
2. Business taxes are not personal taxes (or do you think that, when you use your income to buy something for a business, the business shouldn't have to pay taxes on the sale because you paid taxes on your income?).

[Anonymous]

^^^buy something FROM a business

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^buy something FROM a business

Businesses only pay taxes on profits not cost of sales.

[Anonymous]

Not really getting the OP's point...

The private school parents pay property taxes also so the school they choose to pay and send THEIR children to, should also pay taxes because??? Aren't private schools an educational institution just like any other school?

Sometimes the jealousy on DCUM borders on juvenile... oh wait, I would think that juvenile would be unfair, you would expect your children to be more mature.

BTW my children do not attend private schools, no way we could afford one in this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not really getting the OP's point...

The private school parents pay property taxes also so the school they choose to pay and send THEIR children to, should also pay taxes because??? Aren't private schools an educational institution just like any other school?

Sometimes the jealousy on DCUM borders on juvenile... oh wait, I would think that juvenile would be unfair, you would expect your children to be more mature.

BTW my children do not attend private schools, no way we could afford one in this area.

No. What are you not understanding? The point is why are these schools -- with their endowments and access to multi-millions of fundraising dollars (which are typically used for lavish facilities and the like) -- exempted from paying property taxes? Why? The schools are not engaged in an altruistic public service. They provide a very expensive, private service for a very few. They are not engaged in a public service of any kind. They should pay property taxes.

My god. What is the matter with you. Let me guess, under your theory, we should also exempt private country clubs from paying property taxes because they are in the business of providing exercise for their members and, after all, this way their members aren't overburdening the county pools. Ridiculous!

These schools are educating a very small number of children in ways that create a vulgar gap between haves and have-nots. I could understand such a tax exemption if the schools were a true public service: spent down their large endowments, charged no tuition and were 100% merit-based (no legacies, no connections, etc.). If that were the case, no problem. That would be in the true spirit of a non-profit exemption. But to essentially use tax exemptions to perpetuate an exclusionary system: no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
My god. What is the matter with you. Let me guess, under your theory, we should also exempt private country clubs from paying property taxes because they are in the business of providing exercise for their members and, after all, this way their members aren't overburdening the county pools. Ridiculous!

Actually, private country clubs pay reduced property taxes -- at least in Maryland.

http://maryland-politics.blogspot.com/2010/01/great-country-club-tax-break.html

The value of the Bethesda Country Club's 142.79 acres is assessed at $142,700.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^buy something FROM a business

Businesses only pay taxes on profits not cost of sales.

Businesses actually also pay taxes on sales. They're called sales taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^buy something FROM a business

Businesses only pay taxes on profits not cost of sales.

Businesses actually also pay taxes on sales. They're called sales taxes.

No consumers pay 'sales' taxes not businesses. Businesses collect taxes from the consumer and remit to the state. If you are buying a widget for resale, you are exempted from taxes on the item and the taxes are passed on the end customer.

[Anonymous]

OP so do you support all academic establishments having to pay taxes like nursery schools, colleges, and daycares that offer enrichment? Or are you just after private k-12? What about private religious schools that do not necessarily offer a superior education but people send their kids their for religious reasons?

[Anonymous]

These schools are educating a very small number of children in ways that create a vulgar gap between haves and have-nots. I could understand such a tax exemption if the schools were a true public service: spent down their large endowments, charged no tuition and were 100% merit-based (no legacies, no connections, etc.). If that were the case, no problem. That would be in the true spirit of a non-profit exemption. But to essentially use tax exemptions to perpetuate an exclusionary system: no.

Can't figure out if you are a socialist or just extremely jealous of anyone that has attained enough wealth to provide a private school education for their children.

I grew up very poor, and I mean just barely above the poverty line, my father also died when I was young. I worked and supported myself all the way through college and obtained a very good education. My mother taught us to be grateful for what we had not to tear down everyone around us but to bring ourselves up. My brother and I both are very successful adults because of that attitude.

I can't even imagine having your attitude. It people are wealthy enough to afford private school then let them be. It's only exclusionary if you feel excluded, I don't feel excluded, I feel like I can't afford it, which is just logical. I am grateful EVERY DAY for what I can provide for my children, I can't imagine going to another website crying about what afterschool clubs they have or bemoaning the tax deductible status of a private school.

A school is a school, private or public it provides educational services, therefore it is tax deductible. I don't know anything about country clubs, but I guess you have to bring that in to justify your 'vulgar gap' comment, like they are all the same entity and perhaps in your mind they are.