Rich People and Politicians
OK, so a few years ago, I started a tiny Coverdell account for each of the boys. At the time, Coverdell accounts were a maximum contribution of $2000 a year per child, but there were no financial penalties with them, and the entire fund could be used for ANY kind of education. Even K-12.
So, say you live in an area where you have good elementary schools. But around middle school, it gets a little hairy. You want to put your kids in, say, Catholic school, but you wouldn't be able to afford the tuition monthly. This would be a way for you to save every month toward that.
In other words, I could see this as a great tool for upwardly mobile lower to middle class families in urban environments.
The amount of money you can save wouldn't go anywhere near the Haverford Schools of the world (the schools I'm surrounded by, here in Boboland).
So, why would the big politicians want to repeal this, and take it back to its useless state... (max $500 per year, only to be used for college. What? They want the kid to buy books, I guess.)
I asked a much smarter person (my husband) why they would do this, and he said that politicians hate anything that takes kids out of public schools. It's how they indoctrinate new voters. And rich people aren't affected by this, so they won't do anything to help extend it.
That infuriates me. Seriously.
Is that really why this is not being extended? To keep poor peoples' kids in the public schools?