U.S. Senator David Vitter introduced a bill earlier this month to provide tax relief for homeschooling families. The bills would allow tax deductions of $500.00 per child with a yearly limit of $2,000.00 for K-12 activities.
The bill (S 3076 IS) would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. It is currently in the first step of the legislative process meaning it is still in committee. It has been read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.
His reasoning is that parents of private schools get tax credits, so homeschool parents should as well. I can find no evidence that private school children are given vouchers nationwide. Meanwhile students in his home state of Louisiana do get vouchers.
According to his website, Vitter.senate.gov, he supports educational alternatives.
“All families should be provided with a full spectrum of choices when it comes to the education of their children,” Vitter said. “We need to take the necessary steps to remove the undue financial burdens that are currently placed on home school families. As individuals empower themselves to take responsibility for the proper education of their children, we should in turn provide them with the appropriate tools to do so. To that end, this legislation is a positive step in that process.”
From all appearances, David Vitter, stands solidly behind educational freedom. In fact he is rated 9% by the National Education Association as he makes what is deemed as anti-public education votes. He supports charter schools and increased flexibility, he supports vouchers for private and religious schools, and he voted no on “21st century community learning centers”.
Of course, homeschoolers have reasons to accept or to not use the tax credit should the bill actually pass into law. Regardless of whether you want such a bill to pass, it is interesting that it is an issue at the same time when homeschoolers are being vilified and fighting for their rights in many states.
Why a tax credit for homeschoolers is wrong part 1
Why a tax credit for homeschoolers is wrong part 2