Look! No Hands!
This site already has paid off! I've had a tough go with a friend over tuition tax credits. Probably because of shortcomings in my presentation, I was unable to pursuade him that the issue has two sides, that it is not an attempt to poke public education in the eye, and that it just might be a financial benefit to public education. He read my previous posts on the issue and sent me this,
I have found myself pondering the Dec. 23 blog entry about the TTC studies (the one by USU vs. the one by the Think Tank). As you mentioned, it is likely a complex issue, and as you know, I have not believed the math in support of it (even before the fellow from the Tribune wrote his article). In your blog, you mention the USU study as one tool in the toolbox, but it has seemed to me it is the only useful tool in the toolbox if considering a "Yes" on TTC. It seems that the math works if a) there are a lot of switchers, b) a good percentage of those switchers are cost-heavy students (i.e., lower income), and c) the marginal costs are correct (which rely quite a bit on a) and b)). And, I found it interesting that, traditionally, 80% of private schoolers attend religious institutions - indicating that at least a) isn't going to happen - which has an impact on c). Of course, I guess if nobody switched, a "Yes" makes no difference. But, I still believe that what will likely happen is that a "Yes" will favor the rich and those from both ends of the political spectrum that aren't much interested in the common good. At any rate, there are social issues as well, and I'm not sure what those social issues will be.
He still isn't convinced on the merits, and that's fine. He's convinced that the issue merits discussion, and he's even applied some algebra to it. Political process is the winner!
On the merits, I'd point out that everyone who has studied the issue acknowledges that the credit is less than the marginal cost. Marginal cost! Can you believe our conversation has progressed to where we actually are talking about that key term? And on the "benefits the rich" score, the credit should be limited to those who would struggle to afford private education. I know that such inequitable treatment is not fair to people of greater means, but I'm bluntly telling you where I see this idea becoming a political reality. First, prove that it's not the ruination of public education, that in fact it helps public education, and then it can be broadened.
By the way, my friend is much smarter than I am, and I don't pretend to believe I can outthink him or enlighten him. But I can share data with him and he can share his analysis with me.
I have found myself pondering the Dec. 23 blog entry about the TTC studies (the one by USU vs. the one by the Think Tank). As you mentioned, it is likely a complex issue, and as you know, I have not believed the math in support of it (even before the fellow from the Tribune wrote his article). In your blog, you mention the USU study as one tool in the toolbox, but it has seemed to me it is the only useful tool in the toolbox if considering a "Yes" on TTC. It seems that the math works if a) there are a lot of switchers, b) a good percentage of those switchers are cost-heavy students (i.e., lower income), and c) the marginal costs are correct (which rely quite a bit on a) and b)). And, I found it interesting that, traditionally, 80% of private schoolers attend religious institutions - indicating that at least a) isn't going to happen - which has an impact on c). Of course, I guess if nobody switched, a "Yes" makes no difference. But, I still believe that what will likely happen is that a "Yes" will favor the rich and those from both ends of the political spectrum that aren't much interested in the common good. At any rate, there are social issues as well, and I'm not sure what those social issues will be.
He still isn't convinced on the merits, and that's fine. He's convinced that the issue merits discussion, and he's even applied some algebra to it. Political process is the winner!
On the merits, I'd point out that everyone who has studied the issue acknowledges that the credit is less than the marginal cost. Marginal cost! Can you believe our conversation has progressed to where we actually are talking about that key term? And on the "benefits the rich" score, the credit should be limited to those who would struggle to afford private education. I know that such inequitable treatment is not fair to people of greater means, but I'm bluntly telling you where I see this idea becoming a political reality. First, prove that it's not the ruination of public education, that in fact it helps public education, and then it can be broadened.
By the way, my friend is much smarter than I am, and I don't pretend to believe I can outthink him or enlighten him. But I can share data with him and he can share his analysis with me.
posted by steve u. at 1/05/2005
Subscribe
0 Comments:
<< Home