- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
"Conservatives" agree to new entitlement program costing hundreds of millions per year
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:31 am
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:31 am
LINK
According to PAR, this could quickly get to $500 million per year in NEW spending.
No plan on how to pay for this. By the way, unlike the feds, the state can't deficit spend.
Doesn't Riser also have the bill to kill the income tax? At least we have one good conservative left, I guess.
Now comes the part where all the unintelligent people will scream about how property taxes pay for public schools they don't use, despite the fact that the state collects no property taxes, and no property taxes will be routed to private schools.
This is net new spending, net of kids moving from public to private, in the few instances where that may happen.
quote:
House Bill 745 would allow families to apply for state grants to spend on private school tuition, uniforms, online classes and more. The publicly funded grants would be available to all families regardless of financial need, including those who already pay for private school. The program is projected to cost about $260 million in 2027, the first year all families are eligible for grants, and would get more expensive as more parents enroll, according to a legislative analysis.
According to PAR, this could quickly get to $500 million per year in NEW spending.
No plan on how to pay for this. By the way, unlike the feds, the state can't deficit spend.
quote:
The state House of Representatives passed the bill Monday 71-32, though not on party lines, as a half dozen Republicans joined Democrats in voting against it and five Democrats joined a host of GOP members in voting for it. It now heads to the Senate for a vote.
quote:
Republicans voting against it were Reps. Joe Stagni, R-Kenner; Neil Riser, R-Columbia, Brett Geymann, R-Lake Charles; Shane Mack, R-Livingston; Larry Bagley, R-Stonewall and Dewitth Carrier, R-Oakdale.
Doesn't Riser also have the bill to kill the income tax? At least we have one good conservative left, I guess.
Now comes the part where all the unintelligent people will scream about how property taxes pay for public schools they don't use, despite the fact that the state collects no property taxes, and no property taxes will be routed to private schools.
This is net new spending, net of kids moving from public to private, in the few instances where that may happen.
26
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:37 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
According to PAR, this could quickly get to $500 million per year in NEW spending.
Is it new spending or getting the tax money you pay for public schooling back to use at a private school?
I'm assuming this is an issue because public school funding would not be cut by however much is used on this program, but I haven't looked into this much.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:37 am to LSUFanHouston
End public schools and have this option for everyone.
Schools should have to compete for students. It should not be the other way around.
Schools should have to compete for students. It should not be the other way around.
This post was edited on 4/9/24 at 10:39 am
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:37 am to LSUFanHouston
Getting your own money back is "entitlement spending"
Lol. The circus never has a day off.
Lol. The circus never has a day off.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:40 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Is it new spending or getting the tax money you pay for public schooling back to use at a private school?
Net new spending. There would be some reduction of state spending because the cost of this entitlement per person is less than the cost of public school per person.
But the vast majority of this program would be for kids who don't use the public schools in the first place, so the state isn't currently paying anything for these kids.
So it's really like $580M new spending, $60M savings, net $520M.
This post was edited on 4/9/24 at 10:41 am
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:41 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Getting your own money back is "entitlement spending"
This is new spending, I believe
quote:
These assumptions, along with the perstudent calculations above, would result in a long-term net cost estimate of $520 million per year. Public student transfers account for $39 million of the cost estimate, with private school enrollees accounting for the bulk of the cost at $480 million. To the extent that fewer existing private school students use ESAs, the cost would be lower. For example, if only 50% of these families use ESAs, the cost would be $340 million
quote:
An important caveat to each analysis is that ESA expenses would be subject to legislative appropriation. In other words, while the cost to provide ESAs for everyone who wants one could be $520 million, lawmakers may only set aside $200 million for the program. This acts as a potential check on the growth of the program.
That's per PAR LINK
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:42 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Getting your own money back is "entitlement spending"
What money to do you pay to the state specifically for public schools?
By the way, I didn't use the services of a number of state agencies last year. Do I get my tax money back for that?
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:42 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
But the vast majority of this program would be for kids who don't use the public schools in the first place
Why should private school families have to pay for schools they aren't using on top of paying for their private schooling? Calling this "new spending" is very disingenuous IMO.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:42 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
What money to do you pay to the state specifically for public schools?
Is this a joke?
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:43 am to Achilles Hill
quote:
End public schools and have this option for everyone.
Schools should have to compete for students. It should not be the other way around.
That would make more sense than this bill.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:43 am to LSUFanHouston
Good, instead of sending those tax monies to failing public schools, we can transfer that money back to the parents to send their kids somewhere that will actually educate and not indoctrinate.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:45 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Calling this "new spending" is very disingenuous IMO.
Why? It literally is going to be new spending.
quote:
Why should private school families have to pay for schools they aren't using on top of paying for their private schooling?
You're showing why they call them "entitlements".
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:45 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Calling this "new spending" is very disingenuous IMO.
No, it's math.
It's money the state is not currently spending, that the state will have to spend.
quote:
Why should private school families have to pay for schools they aren't using on top of paying for their private schooling
Does that hold for every government service, or just education?
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:45 am to LSUFanHouston
The last of my brood will graduate from private school in 2025, so we wouldn’t be affected by this. That aside, I wonder what strings will be attached for the private schools that accept this grant money?
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:45 am to LSUFanHouston
God fobid our tax dollars going to the betterment of American citizens instead of funding endless wars or feeding and housing low iq, uncivilized animals from 3rd world shitholes
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:45 am to jrodLSUke
quote:
instead of sending those tax monies to failing public schools, we can transfer that money back to the parents to send their kids somewhere that will actually educate and not indoctrinate.
LA taxpayers will be paying for both.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:46 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Is this a joke?
Please list the sales taxes, property taxes, etc that you pay to the state of louisiana specifically for public schools.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:46 am to Feelthebarn
quote:
God fobid our tax dollars going to the betterment of American citizens instead of funding endless wars or feeding and housing low iq, uncivilized animals from 3rd world shitholes
The most directly responsive post in TD history
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:46 am to LSUFanHouston
They won't have a way to pay for this in a few years without raising taxes. I guess Jeffy is fine with kicking that can down the road for the next guy to handle though.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 10:46 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
No, it's math.
It's money the state is not currently spending, that the state will have to spend.
That still feels disingenuous to me
quote:
Does that hold for every government service, or just education?
I wouldn't be too jazzed about paying for publicly funded emergency services if I was paying for private ones, so sure.
Page 1 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News