Jonathan, they actually do take care of your point in the bill although the article may not have detailed the economics specifically. The state calculated budget impact of this legislation is $37 million. The bill provides for $25 million of scholarships for low-income ($15 million) children (reduced / free-lunch kids) and special needs children ($10 million). As Mrs. Floyd is pointing out, the remaining $12 million is a VERY MODEST tax deduction for families that send their children to independent schools ($4,000 deduction = $280 at the maximum 7% SC income tax rate). Given we as taxpayers spend almost $12,000 per child in the public school system (excluding facility building costs of $1,500 per child annually), this is a massive saving to taxpayers. Average independent school in SC is approximately $4,700 per year. We are not talking "rich" vs. "poor" ... we are talking about giving parents choice with a very "modest" bill which passed the House 65 to 49 - even with all the misinformation.

Jeff, I'm not sure you understand my point, which is that the bill does nothing for public education -- the main avenue for educating our citizenry.The bill does not provide for $25 million in scholarships. It provides a tax credit for those organizations choosing to issue scholarships. $25 million is the cap on the total amount of tax credits available. It does guarantee that any new scholarships will be created, or what the criteria for such scholarships will be. Usually scholarships are given to kids who have already excelled academically. That does little to help the kids who are not excelling academically because they attend inferior schools in SC!

Your proposition that this is a "massive savings to taxpayers" presupposes that this will create some massive surge in private school attendance. We both know that is not true.

"Average [private] school in SC is approximately $4,700 per year." Are you saying that $4,700 per year is chump change for the average South Carolinian? You sound like Mitt Romney.

I'm still unclear as to how this provides a new "choice." You refuted the point yourself by stating the modesty of the deduction. The average parent in South Carolina cannot come close to $4,700 per year for elementary education. Given the modesty of the savings to those who already send their kids to private school, where are you conjuring this new "choice" from?

Jonathan, I would not say the MAIN purpose of this $37 million bill is to help public education. The $9 billion SC taxpayers already give public education is supposed to help public education. Do you really thing "piling on" another $37 million will make a difference? They would just build another $24 million school on Sullivan's Island for 430 elementary school students (at a cost of $58k per student). Is that what we need to educate our children / future? I'm not picking on Sullivan's Island ... they probably spend the same amount on rural SC schools as well - my point is throwing money at the problem is not the solution, we have to think "out of the box". By providing an option / choice to parents, public education should benefit in the long term, at least that is the hard evidence results this type of legislation has had in other states such as FL, GA, AZ, PA, etc. However, you are correct in that even $4,700 is a high tuition bill for a low-income family to send their child to an independent/private school. Some low-income families actually do make that sacrifice for their children, working 2 and 3 jobs ... and they deserve some help. So, if the scholarship funding organization (SFO) grants a $4,700 scholarship to a low-income family that today can't afford that high bill ... isn't it a good thing?

If we suddenly acquired $37 million to use towards public education, and most of it was funnelled to one wealthy town, we have a bigger problem. If the education money we have is used inefficiently, then legislation needs to address how the money is handled. But the House has not been working on that. We see what they have been working on.

I wholeheartedly agree that "throwing money" at any problem is never the be all end all solution.

I can't really address your claim that hard evidence shows "legislation like this" has made public education better in FL, GA, AZ, PA, etc. I do know that "school choice" bills mean different things in different states. That statement is too generic to really be refuted. Nonetheless, it isn't clear how providing a tax deduction for private school parents is going to trickle down to the public school system. For families that cannot budget for grade school tuition whatsoever, the deduction does nothing to change that situation. It does, however, alter the budget for the public school system. This "choice" that you keep talking about is eluding me. It seems like rhetoric used to make people feel that something is happening, which really isn't.

Full tuition scholarships are great. But the bill doesn't condition the tax credit on full tuition scholarships, nor does a scholarship have to continue through the child's entire school career.

Jonathan, the politicians certainly should be focusing on more efficient spending. I personally support more money to teachers and students, but so much gets siphoned off by the bureaucrats and administration. The public schools are at such a disadvantage because of all the regulations they have to comply with and that is where I believe the money disappears. I've known many a teacher that went into the profession very optimistic and wanting to teach/help children ... and come out bitter and upset because of the bureaucracy. It is sad and unfortunate, and its the children who end up suffering. The beauty of the independent/private schools is they don't have to comply with these insane regulations ... but they are subject to the ultimate regulation that the parents (consumers) can choose to stop going to that school. That is your check and balance. Anyhow, there has been a lot written about the Florida legislation and the positive results they have had there. (FYI, Florida has a corporate income tax.) The program in FL has been around since approximately 2000/2001 and although it was originally a Republican initiative, it actually has largely bi-partisan support today. And realize, the FL scholarship program is "only" $218 million after 11+ years of experience and a state that is probably 5 or 6 times bigger than SC. This $37 million bill is not going to impact the $9 BILLION SC public school budget in any way, the "power people" just don't want any competition.

You are thinking like I do!! Options for the well off are the name of the game here in SC and it should not be that way!!!

Jonathan, my friend, you are proving Mrs. Floyd's point of "[t]he biggest obstacle to the parental choice movement in South Carolina has been the lack of understanding of what School Choice is". As a future Juris Doctorate yourself ... and thus a future leader of your community ... you have a civic responsibility to read / research the bill before you comment and mislead others. If you still don't like it, that is OK, reasonable people can debate the issues ... but non-lawyers have a hard enough time figuring out all the legal "mumbo jumbo" and they look to us (as lawyers) for guidance in these matters. Yes, this bill can do more to help low-income families, but we have to start somewhere and with all the misinformation about what School Choice "really is", this is the best we can do to get the votes for passage. I hope you can help by contacting your State Senator and encouraging them to vote YES on S 1325 / H 4894. Thanks.

Jeff, I have read the bill. Insinuating that I haven't suggests that you've run out of real arguments.

Furthermore, suggesting that I am trying to mislead people because I disagree with you is insincere and small-minded.

Geez, I tried to temper my comment by starting it off saying "my friend." There are lots of folks that just trash proposals based on ideological lines without actually knowing the facts. I am glad you have read the bill and we can, as reasonable people debate the issues. No offense was intended and I apologize if you took it as such.

No worries, Jeff.

Funny ... I always say I have a "JD" (just using the abbreviation) because it seemed pretentious to say I was a lawyer or had a law degree (but I am a tax lawyer, so not sure if that really counts!!) Who knows what is right .. .but interesting commentary, THX.

You know, I didn't even think about the "JD" abbreviation but, as soon as you mentioned it, I thought about it. Worse, none of my lawyer buddies said anything about it, either--which says something about my choice of friends. Actually, if someone said he/she had a JD degree, I would know what that was as quickly as if they had said they had a law degree. I really was just playing with the whole thing--having been around Karen way too much, I cannot keep myself from putting the needle in. The funny thing is that I have a Ph.D, but virtually never mention it lest I get the "piled higher and deeper" line. So goes...

I think the fact that Karen wrote "juris doctorate" is of little consequence or meaning. The term "esquire" sounds fairly pretentious, yet it is commonly used every time a lawyer signs anything. The fact that you had to mention your friend is an Emory alumn also comes off as pretty pretentious. Let's stick to the issue -- personal attacks are not helpful.

The three of us should grab a beer and compare "designations"!! Perhaps we would end the outing with a solution / compromise for a real "school choice" program.

Haha, Jeff -- I can never turn down and invitation to grab a beer:)

Hey, Jonathan! Get yourself a sense of humor! If you know Karen, you know that she seldom misses an opportunity to aggrandize herself and, guess what, I'm going to stick a pin in that balloon every chance I get. That is, if it's okay with you.

It wasn't a personal attack. I don't do much attacking unless it is an issue with which I strongly disagree and the "attack" is directed at the issue. If my post had been a personal attack, there would have been no doubt about it.

Having read the posts in this thread and having recognized that there is a lot of defensiveness in the air per this thread, I'd suggest that there might be several folks who might want to take a step back and breathe deeply.

Regardless, I'll feel free to post whatever I want--whether it is pertinent to the primary issue or just poking someone's grandiosity. That is, if it's okay with you.

Oh, and by the way,

Both my friend (the Emory alum) and I (another Emory alum) and probably other Emory alumni in the area are grateful that there is someone who imagines that mentioning one's Emory roots is being, uh, "pretensious." Who knew? I've already had a call from one, uh, Emory alum who got a kick out of it.

Stay loose, bud.

Jeff:

I don't drink anymore but, whoa, that beer is sounding better and better.

BTW, one thing that didn't make my post was that I knew no other group of professionals who, to their credit, took themselves less seriously than lawyers. It is not that they don't take their work seriously, they clearly do. But they don't take themselves as lawyers all that seriously. And that is refreshing.

The best lawyer jokes I've ever heard were told me by lawyers.

Okay, I've taken deep breaths and, instead of the beer, I think I'll head for the gym.

To Rusty; “I know the not-so-much-mentioned intent of it (the bill)— May 1

Please do tell. Don’t leave us hanging. I stated before that I am missing an understanding of the significance of this bill and how it will improve education in SC. Any help will be appreciated.

Sorry for this being out of sequence. I needed to find a reply button directly associated with something you posted.

@John H: I fear that my remarks per the various "choice/voucher" bills proposed over the past few years have become less than congenial. My impatience has grown as the arguments offered in opposition to such bills continue to speak only to the most obvious and yet, ironically, the most superficial flaws/implications inherent in them. The deepest flaws/implications are a bit more subterranean and reflective of a darkness not yet redeemed by either time or conscience.

I trust that your "Please, do tell. Don't leave us hanging." is a genuine inquiry. If not, you have wasted my time. But, no matter. It does seem important to articulate one of the unspoken yet primary intents of these bills. I am not saying anything that has not been said in the media, in the legislative chambers, and in informal State House conversations. But it has, oddly enough, not generated much comment in the general public.

Simply put, one of the intents/implications of these bills is, as I implied in another post per this subject, to accomplish a virtual re-segregation of education in South Carolina. This time around, however, segregation would be effected along more all-encompassing lines. Where once segregation was simply a racial matter, the new lines of division would be class/cultural/social. Interestingly, they would be racial only where class/cultural/social differences implied race as a factor.

Eventuality, more often than not, is indicative of intent.

To Rusty; Thank you very much for your time. It was a genuine request because I like many people are truly interested in improving education. I want to know what the lawmakers are thinking in regards to the various proposed legislations. I will not support legislation that undermines the tremendous investment of time and money in the present system that is not perfect but a work in progress.

To Rusty; Pardon my ignorance of the ongoing dialogue regarding school choice and education improvement in South Carolina. Also please excuse the “Do tell” phrasing of the query. I realize that in this format it usually precedes a challenge which was not my intent.

Sometimes the amplitude of the emotions in a dialogue indicates the degree of passion possessed by the participants. People in South Carolina are passionate about education.

Thanks for the incite into the politics of education in South Carolina.

Typo. Though, to be honest, Emory alumni have been knowed two misspel a word or too ever now and then.

Man, I'm glad I didn't tell you where I did my undergraduate work. You really would have been upset. And I would have had to once again deal with you calling me, uh, "silly."

Seriously, tho, Jonathan, it's time to let it be. I'm not responding to your contention that I mentioned an Emory friend in order to find validation. What a crock! Such a comment is far more reflective of your insecurities than any I might have.

I don't take it personally because, one, you don't know me and, two, I've read your posts directed toward others in this thread and several of them have contained vitriol similar to that directed toward me. So, why don't we agree not to respond to each other? Perhaps, ever again?

It seems as tho you need to have the last word in your arguments, so I'm going to let you. I've got better things to do than respond to this continued, uh, silliness.

Tho, by the way, I absolutely agree with your thoughts about school choice/credits/vouchers/etc. I am a huge public school supporter and not interested in subsidizing the expensive private school tuition bills of those who "have" while, at the same time, giving tax credits to those who "have" for the contributions they make to a fund which will allow a poor kid to perhaps attend--if he/she has transportation--a cheap, little, underfunded "private" school thrown up to take advantage of this proposed "innovation" in education. Having worked at the State House for too long, I suppose, I know what's behind this legislation, who's behind it, and what it would mean for those who "have" and what it would mean for those who, well, "don't have." That is all simply put, I know, but I'm with you on that.

Rusty, transportation costs are included in the scholarship. Most private schools also provide scholarships for those needing it. And, the tax credits are not just for wealthy people sending kids to private school. Homeschoolers could really use the small amount given as a tax credit to pay for books, which can be expensive. Public school is not always the best option for a child. Many grow and thrive schooled at home.

Candace:

While I appreciate the genuineness of your stance, the responses you offer do not alleviate the real problem:

This bill would result in taxpayers subsidizing the enormously expensive private school bills run up by people who "have" enough to send their children to large, well-funded, superior private schools.

At the same time, it would result in the creation of innumerable small, underfunded, inferior, and, by-and-large unregulated "private schools" which would suddenly appear in order to take advantage of this "educational innovation." It would only be to these schools that parents receiving the $2500 "scholarship" could afford to send their child(ren).

That the $2500 scholarships would come from contributions made by those who "have" in return for a tax credit--not a deduction, but a credit--makes matters even worse, given that it creates a scenario wherein those who "have" can get their high tuition bills subsidized by taxpayers while, at the same time, receiving tax credits for contributions that function to keep the children of those who "don't have" even more separated from their own kids.

Though a family could use a portion of the $2500 "scholarship" for transportation, it simply reduces the amount that family has available to pay for tuition. And you are assuming that a family even has a mode of transportation available to it.

John H, I am not sure why you missed it as the link you posted is correct, but it is tax DEDUCTIONS for parents that actually have expenses associated with independent schools, home schooling or send their child to a different public school district. The tax credit is for DONATIONS to 501(c)(3) SFO's by individuals or corporations. Very clear, no "hitch". Please check again and let me know if you don't see it.

- A BILL -
TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-6-1145 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A DEDUCTION FROM STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TAXABLE INCOME UP TO SPECIFIED AMOUNTS FOR TUITION PAID BY A PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN FOR THEIR CHILD OR WARD TO ATTEND AN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL OR A PUBLIC SCHOOL OUTSIDE THE CHILD'S OR WARD'S SCHOOL DISTRICT OF RESIDENCE, AND TO ALSO AUTHORIZE A SIMILAR INCOME TAX DEDUCTION UP TO A SPECIFIED AMOUNT TO A PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN FOR HOME SCHOOL EXPENDITURES; AND BY ADDING SECTION 12-6-1146 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE A CREDIT AGAINST A TAXPAYER'S SOUTH CAROLINA INCOME TAX LIABILITY OR CERTAIN OTHER TAX LIABILITY FOR CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TO NONPROFIT SCHOLARSHIP FUNDING ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE GRANTS FOR CHILDREN WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THE FEDERAL FREE OR REDUCED SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM, WHO ARE "EXCEPTIONAL NEEDS" CHILDREN, OR WHOSE FAMILIES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL MEDICAID BENEFITS TO ATTEND INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS OF THEIR CHOICE, AND TO PROVIDE THE PROCEDURES FOR, AND CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THESE TAX CREDITS.

Student Scholarship Organizations – South Carolina

In order to assist children whose parents have little or no tax liability, the South Carolina Education Opportunity Act proposes the creation of Student Scholarship Organizations (SSO), which would award scholarships to children who qualify for subsidized lunches or Medicaid. These scholarships may be used by students across South Carolina to pay for tuition costs, including transportation. The bill would allow individuals and businesses to reduce their tax liability by contributing to these non-profit organizations that disperse funds to families to help them pay for their children’s education. With minor differences between districts, these scholarships would be approximately $2,500. The South Carolina Education Opportunity Act follows the model of Arizona, Florida and Pennsylvania in the creation of these student scholarship organizations. By law, these SSO’s would have to distribute 95% of their receipts as scholarships to low-income children.

@ ReadIt: Your statement that parents "can deduct most of the cost of college tuition and other related expenses" is too ludicrous for words. Have you sent a child through college? There is a cap on the deduction and it doesn't even come close to "the cost of college tuition and other related expenses." You really might want to check your information before you put something like that out there.

And you are too wrong for words when stating that somehow the deductions a parent receives for college make it irrelevant as to whether a child attends a public or private college. As I said, there is a cap. It is not a floating cap, it is a flat cap. Hence, if your child decides to attend a private college that is much more expensive than a public university, you are going to be paying a lot more and the amount you deduct will be a much smaller percentage of total cost.

And your statement that the taxpayer susidization of children attending private schools results in "all good things" is, again, ludicrous. Just begin with the fact that the $37 million dollar figure you throw around comes from tax revenue. Guess what? That is still real taxpayer money being utilized to subsidize children going to private schools---most of it subsidizing the children of parents who are sending kids to the best, most expensive private schools. Sorry, Sport, but I don't want $37 million going to benefit people who don't need any more benefits. No, no, no way.

Wow!

And apparently you haven't talked to the people who actually wrote the bill. There is a cap involved with these deductions as well. And it doesn't amount to the full cost of sending your child to a different school --- exactly like the college deduction. Yes, it seems I didn't elaborate enough on the college deduction - you're right about the cap there, my fault for overlooking it. The $37 million figure isn't "thrown around" either. It's the number estimated by the budget office. Deductions will not equal the full amount spent, and actually for higher affluent families, the deduction will be less than those who perhaps do not have the means of the wealthy folks.

The $37 million is money lost from deductions. It's money that the parent would have already paid. If you do not have a child in the education system, your tax dollars are not being converted to a deduction. You already pay a certain amount in taxes that go to the education department. That money does not get returned to the parent. Only the parent's money spent will be deducted. It doesn't effect your tax dollars in the slightest, it effects theirs. It's two separate pots of money.

Actually, having just retired from my work at the State House, I not only know the people who wrote the bill--which would immediately exclude my support of it, given that I know the not-so-much-mentioned intent of it--but am quite familiar with its details. I have been following the various "choice/voucher" bills for years.

I very well know that there is a cap on the deductions, as there is a cap on the tax credits one can receive from donating to the scholarship fund for less privileged kids. I never imagined the voucher would pay the full cost of private school tuition. But that in no way mediates my point. I do not believe that any taxpayer funds should be used to subsidize private school education. None. Not a dime. Not a nickel. Not a penny.

I have a friend and neighbor who has four children enrolled in right expensive private schools. Do you really think I want my taxes or any taxes utilized to help him with his tuition payments? And, to the extent that deductions represent monies to which the state would be privy were it not for an "exception," yes, those monies represent all of our tax dollars. Sorry, your "deduction" argument won't fly.

More significantly, the educational/social/cultural issues that would derive from this practice would be so regressive as to take us back down the road toward the dark days of "separate and unequal"--though this time it would not only be race-based but also class-based.

First off, it's not a tax credit. A deduction is not equal to a credit. They are totally different. Deductions do not equal the full amount of taxes paid.

Secondly - the $37 million is not an expense out of the education budget (which is being increased this year anyway). It is money returned to parents out of tax revenue - different pots of money, different purposes.

Most importantly - private schools are held to the same standards as public schools. You can't just open a school in your home and give out diplomas left and right. Every private school is accredited by the state, or a governing independent school association, which in turn is accredited by the state. Private schools have the same standardized tests, same classroom standards for every. Colleges wouldn't accept private school graduates if the standards weren't the same. Private schools are more viable to scrutiny and poor performance, because it's a lot easier to leave a private school than it is a public school...you just stop paying them.

@ReadIt: Your distinction between the education budget and the total pot of tax revenue is so absolutely bogus. Do you not think state money for the education budget comes from tax revenue? What pot do you think it comes from?

And, no, you are really wrong when you say that private schools are held to the same standards as public schools. You might as well say that parents who are homeschooling their kids are checked up on by the state or some accrediting agency. And when you start talking about "a governing independent school association," which one are you talking about? You know, of course, that there are several and that their standards are very different. No, no, no. Private schools do not "have to" meet the same standards as public schools--some do, but many, many don't. Again, you would have to then argue that homeschooling parents have to meet those standards and somehow be accredited.

A choice/voucher system would see a proliferation of small, underfunded, unregulated, and under-performing "private schools" throughout this state. For goodness' sake, we would have to form another agency to oversee all the people who would have to be hired to audit all those little schools.