WORST CHOICE FOR SCHOOL CHOICE: TUITION TAX CREDITS ARE A BAD IDEA AND DIRECT FUNDING IS WISER

Michael Broyde, Anna Gabianelli
{"title":"WORST CHOICE FOR SCHOOL CHOICE: TUITION TAX CREDITS ARE A BAD IDEA AND DIRECT FUNDING IS WISER","authors":"Michael Broyde, Anna Gabianelli","doi":"10.52214/cjtl.v15i1.12356","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"            School choice is on the rise, and states use various mechanisms to implement it. One prevalent mechanism is also a uniquely problematic one: the tax credit. Tax credits are deficient at equitably distributing a benefit like school choice; they are costly, and they invite fraud. Instead of using tax credits, states opting for school choice programs should use direct funding. Direct funding will more efficiently achieve the goals of school choice because it can be regulated like any other government benefit, even if it ends up subsidizing religious private schools.\n            Tax credits’ prevalence is not inexplicable, of course. It is based on a prior legal understanding that states were constitutionally restricted from directly funding religious schools. Historically, states that wanted to include religious private schools in their school choice programs therefore felt pushed to use tax credits as their only constitutionally viable option. However, the landscape has changed. The Supreme Court held in 2022 that direct funding of religious private schools is not only constitutionally permissible, but it is required if a state funds non-religious private schools and provides no neutral basis for excluding religious ones. The initial reason for tax credits’ popularity therefore no longer exists; both tax credits and direct funding alike are constitutionally acceptable. It is time, therefore, to revisit the merits of tax credits and ask whether, knowing what we know now, it is worth disposing of them in favor of direct funding. This Article answers that question with a resounding yes. Tax credits carry significant disadvantages—specifically, inequitable distribution and difficulties in regulation—that direct funding does not. Now that the law is clear, states choosing to sponsor school choice should discontinue their use of tax credits in favor of direct funding.","PeriodicalId":368484,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Tax Law","volume":"116 34","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Journal of Tax Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjtl.v15i1.12356","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

            School choice is on the rise, and states use various mechanisms to implement it. One prevalent mechanism is also a uniquely problematic one: the tax credit. Tax credits are deficient at equitably distributing a benefit like school choice; they are costly, and they invite fraud. Instead of using tax credits, states opting for school choice programs should use direct funding. Direct funding will more efficiently achieve the goals of school choice because it can be regulated like any other government benefit, even if it ends up subsidizing religious private schools.             Tax credits’ prevalence is not inexplicable, of course. It is based on a prior legal understanding that states were constitutionally restricted from directly funding religious schools. Historically, states that wanted to include religious private schools in their school choice programs therefore felt pushed to use tax credits as their only constitutionally viable option. However, the landscape has changed. The Supreme Court held in 2022 that direct funding of religious private schools is not only constitutionally permissible, but it is required if a state funds non-religious private schools and provides no neutral basis for excluding religious ones. The initial reason for tax credits’ popularity therefore no longer exists; both tax credits and direct funding alike are constitutionally acceptable. It is time, therefore, to revisit the merits of tax credits and ask whether, knowing what we know now, it is worth disposing of them in favor of direct funding. This Article answers that question with a resounding yes. Tax credits carry significant disadvantages—specifically, inequitable distribution and difficulties in regulation—that direct funding does not. Now that the law is clear, states choosing to sponsor school choice should discontinue their use of tax credits in favor of direct funding.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
择校的最坏选择:学费减税不是好主意,直接资助更明智
择校热正在兴起,各州利用各种机制来实施择校。其中一种盛行的机制也是一种独具问题的机制:税收减免。税收抵免在公平分配像择校这样的福利方面存在缺陷;成本高昂,而且容易滋生欺诈行为。各州在选择择校计划时,不应使用税收减免,而应使用直接资助。直接资助将更有效地实现择校目标,因为它可以像其他政府福利一样受到监管,即使最终补贴给宗教私立学校。 当然,税收抵免的盛行并非无法解释。它是基于以前的法律认识,即宪法限制各州直接资助宗教学校。从历史上看,各州若想将宗教私立学校纳入择校计划,就不得不将税收减免作为唯一符合宪法的可行选择。然而,情况发生了变化。最高法院于 2022 年裁定,直接资助宗教私立学校不仅在宪法上是允许的,而且如果一个州资助非宗教私立学校,但没有提供中立的依据来排除宗教私立学校,那么直接资助宗教私立学校也是必须的。因此,税收减免受欢迎的最初原因已不复存在;税收减免和直接资助在宪法上都是可以接受的。因此,现在是时候重新审视税收减免的优点,并询问在我们现在所了解的情况下,是否值得放弃税收减免而转为直接资助。本文对这一问题的回答是肯定的。税收减免具有直接资助所不具有的重大弊端,特别是分配不公和监管困难。既然法律已明确规定,选择赞助择校的各州应停止使用税收减免,转而使用直接资助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Keep Charitable Oversight in the IRS WORST CHOICE FOR SCHOOL CHOICE: TUITION TAX CREDITS ARE A BAD IDEA AND DIRECT FUNDING IS WISER TRANSACTION-SPECIFIC TAX REFORM IN THREE STEPS: THE CASE OF CONSTRUCTIVE OWNERSHIP SHAPING THE FUTURE OF TRANSNATIONAL TAX DISPUTE SETTLEMENT THE EXPANSION AND INTERNATIONALIZATION OF MANDATORY DISCLOSURE RULES
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1