Are private school parents doubly taxed?

The "double taxation" argument is one of the most frequently encountered in the voucher debate. In it's standard form, it goes something like this:

Regardless of whether I send my child to a private school, I am forced to pay for the public school system via my taxes. It is wrong that I am forced to pay for the public school system when I have chosen not to use it. Forcing me to pay for both the public system and a private school amounts to double taxation.

For all it's rhetorical appeal, there is not much right with this argument, and plenty that is wrong with it. In fact, the argument flatly misuses the word "taxation," and removes the voucher controversy from its proper political context. Here's a summary of our criticisms:

• In no sense can paying for a private school be considered a "tax." People attend private schools by choice, not by government decree. Yes, a private schools cost money, but that is a burden parents voluntarily decide to shoulder. To call private school tuition a "tax" is to simply be dishonest with the English language.

• In fact, the "double taxation" argument is constructed to camouflage the burdens that all people shoulder as state citizens. Yes, it's true that private school parents have to pay school taxes, but so does every other citizen of the state, and these other citizens most certainly desire to use that money for their own wants and needs. I (Tom Peters), for example, really need a new car, and I could certainly afford a good used one if I didn't have to pay school taxes for a couple of years, but no one is suggesting that the government should be in the business of writing voucher checks for me to buy cars. The "double taxation" argument, in other words, removes private schools from their proper political context--one of many goods upon which private citizens can spend their money--and puts them in an improper context--a privileged good that somehow deserves special treatment from the government.

• Similarly, voucher proponents sometimes argue that "Since I have to pay public school taxes, the government is stopping me from being able to afford private schools." But this is simply another way of claiming special privilege. School taxes also stop me from affording a new car, but that doesn't suddenly obligate the state to give me money to by a new Chevy. Again, the argument is designed to camouflage the fact that all citizens bear the burden of maintaining the school system. One doesn't get out of that burden by deciding to send their kids to private schools.

• A related argument is that, since private school parents don't use the government schools, they should be entitled to their money back. But the vast majority of government services are funded out of general tax revenues, and no one is entitled to their money back simply because they don't use the services those taxes provide. I don't ride the bus, for example, but I still pay for the Louisville bus system with my taxes. I'm not a veteran, but I still pay for the Kentucky Office of Veteran Affairs. I don't own a business, but I pay for a variety of programs that are used to promote business in the state of Kentucky. I'm don't use the Louisville Department of Social Services, but I pay for lots of other citizens to get access to medical care, counselling, and other necessary programs. And here's the clincher: I'm single and don't have any children, but I still have to pay for the public schools. And I should have to pay, since I benefit from a generally educated citizenry. Private school parents are no different.

• Finally, we note that, even if the "double taxation" argument was true, it would be irrelevant. There are some things government cannot pay for because such payment would violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. As we document elsewhere in the web site, vouchers are surely unconstitutional. Even if there was some fairness interest served by providing vouchers to private school parents, it would certainly be overruled by the state's greater interest in preserving the Constitution.

Hence, we conclude that the "double taxation" argument misuses both language and logic to reach an incorrect conclusion. Private school parents aren't being taxed when they pay for private schools, and they have no right to claim any special status in the eyes of government simply because they choose to bypass the public school system and send their own money on private education. Fairness does not obligate government to pay for private schools.