Bill Overview
Title: Educational Choice for Children Act
Description: This bill allows individuals and corporations a new tax credit after 2022 for charitable contributions to tax-exempt organizations that provide scholarships to elementary and secondary school students. Such students must be members of a household with incomes not greater 300% of the area median gross income and be eligible to enroll in a public elementary or secondary school. The bill excludes from the gross income of taxpayer dependents any scholarship amount for the elementary or secondary education expenses of eligible students. It also prohibits governmental control over scholarship granting organizations.
Sponsors: Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]
Target Audience
Population: School-aged children eligible for scholarship programs based on family income
Estimated Size: 25000000
- The bill is designed to benefit elementary and secondary school students, particularly those from households with incomes not exceeding 300% of the area median gross income.
- There are approximately 1.5 billion school-aged children worldwide, with a significant portion potentially meeting the income criteria specified in the bill.
- Worldwide, poverty rates and income levels vary, but a substantial number of families may fall under the 300% of the area median income bracket.
- Scholarship granting organizations, considered in this bill, are crucial in facilitating educational access to lower-income families, thus impacting these children's wellbeing globally.
Reasoning
- The policy specifically targets families with incomes not exceeding 300% of the area median gross income, which covers a significant portion of American students, especially those in public elementary and secondary schools.
- Benefits are distributed through scholarships provided by tax-exempt organizations, which helps reduce the barriers to access to quality education for lower-income families.
- The total budget constraints show that not all eligible families will benefit immediately or equally, so the impact may vary widely among the population.
- The policy aims not just at financial support but indirectly at improving students' wellbeing by enhancing educational opportunities, which should reflect in Cantril wellbeing scores over time.
Simulated Interviews
High school teacher (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy feels like it could relieve some financial stress.
- I'm hopeful about more educational choices for my kids.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Software developer (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I like the idea of more control over where charitable contributions go.
- I don't know how much it will help my family personally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired (Boise, ID)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems to address some financial relief.
- It doesn't directly impact me unless I consider my grandchildren.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Non-profit manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a great incentive for more donations to educational causes.
- It doesn't affect me directly but enhances our initiative's impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Construction worker (Newark, NJ)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about the quality of education my kids are getting.
- This bill could offer better opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Accountant (Miami, FL)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a good way to influence educational outcomes indirectly through tax decisions.
- I might see some benefit if scholarships are available.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Farmer (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might finally give my kids a shot at better education.
- I hope it gets implemented soon.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Small business owner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this means my contributions go farther, then it's a win.
- Our family could use the scholarship money.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Taxi driver (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could provide better access and opportunities for my child.
- I hope it addresses special needs considerations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Public school principal (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could significantly enhance educational access.
- Might not directly impact my family but provides a tool for change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 2: $2200000000 (Low: $1700000000, High: $2700000000)
Year 3: $2400000000 (Low: $1800000000, High: $3000000000)
Year 5: $2600000000 (Low: $2000000000, High: $3200000000)
Year 10: $3200000000 (Low: $2500000000, High: $3500000000)
Year 100: $5000000000 (Low: $4000000000, High: $6000000000)
Key Considerations
- The scale of educational improvement depends on the effective use of scholarships by recipient organizations.
- Administrative costs and fraud prevention measures could impact net benefits.
- Long-term economic benefits depend on successful enhancement in educational outcomes.