Comments on: More on vouchers http://trentmiskin.com/2007/10/31/more-on-vouchers/ Experiences and help from a wandering techy and entrepreneur Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:30:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Trent http://trentmiskin.com/2007/10/31/more-on-vouchers/#comment-5549 Trent Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:12:57 +0000 http://trentmiskin.com/2007/10/31/more-on-vouchers/#comment-5549 Thanks for clearing things up on the budget losses, I didn't read that part closely. I'm glad they have built in caps to it. I do disagree about expecting Utah's economy to keep growing like it has, but that is just an opinion. The part about which families get more money was the point I was trying to make. Some advocates speak of a free market for schools and not having to pay for other people's kids. I wasn't saying only the rich would use the vouchers, I was saying the rich would pay for the poor in the voucher system just like in public school. The voucher system doesn't change that. People earning under 35k a year with a child will be paying next to nothing in Utah taxes, so people in higher income brackets will foot the bill for the voucher. All I am saying is people say that tax payers won't be paying for others in this system, which isn't true. Thanks for clearing things up on the budget losses, I didn’t read that part closely. I’m glad they have built in caps to it. I do disagree about expecting Utah’s economy to keep growing like it has, but that is just an opinion.

The part about which families get more money was the point I was trying to make. Some advocates speak of a free market for schools and not having to pay for other people’s kids. I wasn’t saying only the rich would use the vouchers, I was saying the rich would pay for the poor in the voucher system just like in public school. The voucher system doesn’t change that. People earning under 35k a year with a child will be paying next to nothing in Utah taxes, so people in higher income brackets will foot the bill for the voucher. All I am saying is people say that tax payers won’t be paying for others in this system, which isn’t true.

]]> By: Russell http://trentmiskin.com/2007/10/31/more-on-vouchers/#comment-5548 Russell Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:25:50 +0000 http://trentmiskin.com/2007/10/31/more-on-vouchers/#comment-5548 First of all, $3k per kid is not true. That's the maximum a family can receive per child. There is a tiered dollar amount for vouchers and it's based on the "Income eligibility guideline," which is defined as the maximum annual income allowed to qualify for reduced price meals for the applicable household size as published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture by notice in the Federal Register. I'm trying to find the numbers but in most states, those who make around $35k a year or less qualify for the $3k voucher. Those who are paying $15k a year to send their kid to private school are only going to get the $500 a year voucher. Of course, you don't hear that from referendum opposition. So if "the rich" are the one's really interested in it then you'll only see $500 per voucher sent to them. That's very different than $3k. It's all based on a parents' income. Other thoughts: Parents assume full financial responsibility for the education of their child if they accept the scholarship (that's under the law). The schools are also required to be audited by a CPA, and the legislature still has to designate the money for the vouchers on a per-year basis. If there isn't enough, it gets divided among students who already used vouchers the year before. So in essence, if there isn't enough money and it's mostly "the rich" using the vouchers, then we're talking even less... more like a few hundred dollars per student. I think "budget losses" is the wrong way to look at it. The legislature decides where the education money goes in this state, and this is one of the fastest growing states in the Union. With the major increase in construction, the budget is only going to go up because the education budget is tied to property tax. There will be no loss. Large spikes won't matter either. The legislature decides how much money it will give to the voucher program. The dollar amounts are all caps and that's only if the legislature decides to give (and how much to give) to the voucher program that year. There are far less loose ends than people think, but it's rare that they actually read the fine print on this thing. The full text of it is right here: http://www.votefor1.com/Parent_Choice_in_Education_Act.asp Warning: It's long and full of detail. First of all, $3k per kid is not true. That’s the maximum a family can receive per child. There is a tiered dollar amount for vouchers and it’s based on the “Income eligibility guideline,” which is defined as the maximum annual income allowed to qualify for reduced price meals for the applicable household size as published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture by notice in the Federal Register.

I’m trying to find the numbers but in most states, those who make around $35k a year or less qualify for the $3k voucher. Those who are paying $15k a year to send their kid to private school are only going to get the $500 a year voucher. Of course, you don’t hear that from referendum opposition. So if “the rich” are the one’s really interested in it then you’ll only see $500 per voucher sent to them. That’s very different than $3k. It’s all based on a parents’ income.

Other thoughts:
Parents assume full financial responsibility for the education of their child if they accept the scholarship (that’s under the law). The schools are also required to be audited by a CPA, and the legislature still has to designate the money for the vouchers on a per-year basis. If there isn’t enough, it gets divided among students who already used vouchers the year before.

So in essence, if there isn’t enough money and it’s mostly “the rich” using the vouchers, then we’re talking even less… more like a few hundred dollars per student.

I think “budget losses” is the wrong way to look at it. The legislature decides where the education money goes in this state, and this is one of the fastest growing states in the Union. With the major increase in construction, the budget is only going to go up because the education budget is tied to property tax. There will be no loss. Large spikes won’t matter either. The legislature decides how much money it will give to the voucher program. The dollar amounts are all caps and that’s only if the legislature decides to give (and how much to give) to the voucher program that year.

There are far less loose ends than people think, but it’s rare that they actually read the fine print on this thing.

The full text of it is right here: http://www.votefor1.com/Parent_Choice_in_Education_Act.asp

Warning: It’s long and full of detail.

]]>