logo
The ‘big, beautiful' bill creates a $5 billion tax shelter for private school donors

The ‘big, beautiful' bill creates a $5 billion tax shelter for private school donors

The Hill5 hours ago

The budget reconciliation bill passed by the House last month, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act, ' contains an unconventional provision establishing an unprecedented tax shelter designed to shift resources from public schools to wealthy people and private schools.
The provision allocates $5 billion a year in federal tax credits for donors to organizations that provide private and religious school vouchers. While the bill cuts benefits for other charitable donations, it triples the tax benefit for private school voucher donations.
This unique dollar-for-dollar rebate is something no other charity has ever gotten from the federal government. Other donors may be taken aback to learn that policymakers have singled out private schools for a reward three times larger than what can be received for gifts to pediatric cancer research, flood clean-up or assisting veterans exposed to chemicals.
More alarming still, this provision creates a profitable tax shelter for wealthy people who agree to help funnel public funds into private schools. This is because rich donors will avoid the capital gains tax entirely if they make a gift of stock. Savvy tax advisors will instruct stockholders to avoid selling and to instead donate those holdings, getting a one-for-one return from the federal government — while avoiding hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in capital gains taxes.
This is the quintessential definition of a tax shelter, encouraging affluent people with no interest in school vouchers to direct contributions this way, not out of conviction but for profit. Usually, when policymakers do this, it is an inadvertent by-product of hasty legislative decisions, not an intentional giveaway. This, too, is a norm being broken with this bill.
The provision expands vouchers nationwide, even in states — such as Kentucky, Nebraska and Colorado — where voters recently rejected vouchers at the ballot box. American voters have actually said no to vouchers in every state where they've been put on the ballot, which may be why voucher proponents are sneaking a big expansion into a must-pass federal bill.
Vouchers, in addition to being unpopular, expensive. My organization, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, estimates that this provision alone would as drafted reduce federal tax revenue by $23.2 billion over the next 10 years, or by $67 billion if it is extended beyond its four-year expiration date, as Republicans would likely attempt to do. Because state income taxes largely piggyback on federal law, this provision would reduce state revenue by between $459 million and $1.1 billion over the decade, depending on extension. Of the 10-year state and federal tax cuts from this provision, between $2.2 billion and $5.3 billion would be in the form of capital gains tax avoidance, depending on extension.
Had this provision been in effect in 2021, for example, Elon Musk could have cut his capital gains tax bill by $690 million.
In all, while cutting tax benefits for charities across the board, the reconciliation bill creates an unprecedented giveaway that would enrich the wealthiest Americans, particularly those whose income comes from stock. It would weaken public budgets and public schools, siphoning money to private schools that are allowed to reject many students. Combined with other enormous cuts to public programs and tax cuts for the rich, this is an untenable combination.
Amy Hanauer is executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Jeffries says Trump ‘intentionally' inflaming unrest in Los Angeles
Jeffries says Trump ‘intentionally' inflaming unrest in Los Angeles

The Hill

time20 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Jeffries says Trump ‘intentionally' inflaming unrest in Los Angeles

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) is hammering President Trump over the clashes in Los Angeles, saying the president is purposefully escalating tensions to distract the country from a volatile economy. Speaking to reporters in the Capitol, Jeffries railed against Trump's aggressive deportation policies and defended the rights of Americans to protest such government actions — if it's done peacefully. He accused Trump of 'fanning flames and inciting things on the ground' to distract from a domestic policy agenda that Jeffries has dubbed 'a failure.' 'Donald Trump is clearly trying to distract from the fact that he has a failed administration,' Jeffries said. The Democratic leader also dismissed Trump's argument that, by intervening in the L.A. immigration protests, he's simply bringing law and order to a city where local officials have failed to do so. Jeffries noted that Trump, for hours, had declined to intervene on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters attacked law enforcers at the U.S. Capitol in an effort to block the certification of Trump's election defeat a few months earlier. In January, Trump pardoned roughly 1,500 of the rioters — a move that, according to Jeffries, gives Trump and his supporters 'zero credibility' to claim the mantle of law and order. 'Donald Trump wasn't a leader on Jan. 6. He didn't send the National Guard to stop the violent mob that was brutally beating police officers in plain view for every single American to see,' Jeffries said. 'And this guy, who likely withheld the National Guard — he certainly didn't send them forward — is lecturing the country about law and order?' 'Give me a break. We're not feeling you — particularly as it relates to this issue,' he continued. 'Donald Trump and all of these minions who support him — the sycophants, the extremists — have zero credibility on this issue. Republicans have become the party of lawlessness and disorder.' Amid the unrest in L.A., Trump over the weekend activated members of the National Guard, drawing criticisms from California officials — notably Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) — who said local law enforcement agencies are sufficiently equipped to handle the situation without the involvement of federal troops. Newsom announced Monday that he is suing the administration over the federal intervention. 'This is a manufactured crisis,' Newsom posted on X. 'He is creating fear and terror to take over a state militia and violate the U.S. constitution.' Jeffries is standing squarely behind Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass (D), a former member of the House, who have both argued that local and state law enforcers in California have the faculties and manpower to protect both First Amendment rights and public safety. 'The LAPD, the L.A. Sheriff's Department, other local law enforcement, and the California Highway Patrol, seem to have the capacity to make sure that the situation is addressed — that peaceful protests are allowed to occur, and that law-breakers are held accountable,' Jeffries said.

Judge denies Michael Madigan's motion for new trial, setting stage for high-stakes sentencing Friday
Judge denies Michael Madigan's motion for new trial, setting stage for high-stakes sentencing Friday

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Judge denies Michael Madigan's motion for new trial, setting stage for high-stakes sentencing Friday

A federal judge on Monday denied a motion by former House Speaker Michael Madigan seeking to overturn his recent conviction on bribery and other corruption counts, setting the stage for a high-stakes sentencing hearing later this week. Madigan, 83, was back in the federal courtroom for the first time since a jury convicted him nearly four months ago. But unlike his marathon trial, Monday's hearing was brief. After both sides waived oral arguments on the defense motion, U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey announced he was denying it, though his ruling, which he said is more than 100 pages long, won't be made public for some time. Madigan sat through the 15-minute hearing without comment and walked out carrying an umbrella. Blakey is holding another hearing Tuesday to go over issues on the sentencing guidelines in Madigan's case, which hinge partly on how much money ComEd stood to gain because of legislation the speaker helped usher through the legislative process. Madigan's attorneys are also asking Blakey to strike language from a prosecution filing last Friday revealing for the first time publicly that Madigan 'has amassed a personal fortune of more than $40 million' — a disclosure reported by the Tribune over the weekend. The defense wrote in a motion filed ahead of Monday's hearing that Madigan served the public as a legislator and lawyer for more than 60 years and 'chose frugality over extravagance, remaining in the same modest home for more than fifty years while making prudent savings and investment choices.' 'The government offers zero evidence—absolutely nothing—to justify broadcasting specific details about his net worth,' the motion stated. 'The government's decision to splash his personal financial information across a public filing represents a gross breach of the rules.' Blakey said he'd take up the issue on Tuesday. Madigan's sentencing, set for Friday afternoon, is one of the most highly anticipated hearings in years at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse. Prosecutors have asked for a hefty 12 1/2 year prison term and $1.5 million fine, while the defense is seeking probation along with a period of home confinement. Madigan's defense team filed a motion in March arguing for a new trial in his corruption case, saying prosecutors failed to prove the then-powerful Democrat knew about a scheme by ComEd to pay off his associates and alleging Blakey made a series of mistakes in his evidentiary rulings. The 73-page motion alleged those errors tainted the jury with highly prejudicial evidence, and asked Blakey to reverse the jury's verdict on certain guilty counts and grant a new trial on others. Among the missteps that Madigan's legal team says warrants a new trial: letting in a now-infamous FBI wiretap where Madigan tells his longtime confidant, Michael McClain, that some ComEd contractors 'made out like bandits' for little work; allowing the jury to hear prejudicial testimony about sexual harassment allegations; and including a recorded phone call between McClain and the speaker's son, Andrew Madigan, about another public utility, Peoples Gas, being forced to make political hires. The defense filing also argued that despite the jury's guilty verdict, prosecutors failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Madigan knew about any scheme to enrich his friends or that there was a 'this-for-that' agreement to help shepherd ComEd's legislation in Springfield. 'Michael Madigan is not corrupt. He never exchanged his duty to serve his constituents for private benefit — the essence of corruption,' the filing stated. 'For decades, Madigan sought to ensure ComEd did not get away with ripping off consumers in Illinois. Madigan's primary purpose was to work hard for his community and the Democratic party.' Such post-trial motions are routine and rarely granted. But the filing provides a blueprint for a likely appeal to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Madigan's trial capped one of the most significant political corruption investigations in Chicago's checkered history. It also cemented an extraordinary personal fall for Madigan, the longest-serving state legislative leader in the nation's history who for decades held an iron-tight grip on the House as well as the state Democratic Party. After 11 days of deliberation, the jury's final verdict was mixed. Madigan was convicted of 10 of 23 counts, including marquee allegations that he agreed to squeeze lucrative, do-nothing contracts from ComEd for pals such as former Alds. Frank Olivo and Michael Zalewski and precinct captains Ray Nice and Edward Moody, all while the utility won a series of major legislation victories. Madigan was also convicted on six out of seven counts — including wire fraud and Travel Act violations — regarding a plan to get ex-Ald. Daniel Solis, a key FBI mole who testified at length in the trial, appointed to a state board. Jurors deadlocked on all six counts related to Madigan's co-defendant McClain. jmeisner@

Oakland coffee house at center of Star of David hat controversy sued by DOJ
Oakland coffee house at center of Star of David hat controversy sued by DOJ

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Oakland coffee house at center of Star of David hat controversy sued by DOJ

(KRON) — An Oakland coffee house that refused to serve a customer wearing a hat emblazoned with a Star of David last year is being sued by the United States Department of Justice. On Monday, the DOJ announced it had filed a lawsuit against Fathi Abdulrahim Harara and Native Grounds LLC, the owners of the Jerusalem Coffee House on Telegraph Avenue. The lawsuit, according to the DOJ, alleges the coffee house discriminated against Jewish customers, a violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 'which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in places of public accommodation.' 'It is illegal, intolerable, and reprehensible for any American business open to the public to refuse to serve Jewish customers,' said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division. 'Through our vigorous enforcement of Title II of the Civil Rights Act and other laws prohibiting race and religious discrimination, the Justice Department is committed to combatting anti-Semitism and discrimination and protecting the civil rights of all Americans.' Dozens of arrests after San Francisco protest turns violent Sunday The lawsuit alleges that on two occasions, Harara ordered Jewish customers, who were identified because they were wearing Star of David baseball caps, to leave the business. During one incident, the suit alleges, a Jerusalem Coffee Huse employee told a customer, 'You're the guy with the hat. You're the Jew. You're the Zionist. We don't want you in our coffee shop. Get out.' In another incident cited by the lawsuit, a customer wearing a Star of David hat who was with his 5-year-old son was told to leave repeatedly by Harara, who accused him of supporting 'genocide' and accused of 'trespassing.' That particular incident, which was partially caught on video, was condemned by local leaders including Rep. Ro Khanna and recently elected Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee. The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, further alleges that on the one-year anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas terror attacks, the coffee house unveiled two new drinks: 'Iced In Tea Fada,' and 'Sweet Sinwar,' a reference to former Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. The coffee shop's interior walls, according to the lawsuit, displayed inverted red triangles, 'a symbol of violence against Jews that has been spraypainted on Jewish homes and synagogues in anti-Semitic attacks.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store