Napkin Decoupage Requirement

About studying in private institutions? Who do in public? Microprogram

Now that the fiscal plan presented, one of the points that has been discussed is the relevance of taxing private education. In an exchange I had with Juan Carlos Hidalgo and Mishelle Mitchell, at the suggestion of José Francisco Correa, would provide some information that seems relevant to this debate. It was developed by the M.Sc. Raquel Barrientos, who was my partner in MIDEPLAN and currently serves on the Board of INEC, and always come when I need information of this type.

The data presented below were extracted from the Household Survey conducted by the INEC in 2009. The data for 2010, which used a new methodology for measuring household income are not yet available, although it is likely that the results are not dramatically different.

In 2009, 1,128,976 people were studying in public institutions, 24.891 in so-called semi-or quasi-official institutions, while 283.201 did in private. In college and para levels are more people in private institutions than in public, 159.064 and 124.734 in the first case and 6.024 and 4.651 in the second. In other levels there are more students in public schools than in private.

When analyzing educational enrollment on household income, the results show a large concentration of students higher income in private universities, although the percentage of people of low and middle income is important. In the case of university education, a 68.41% of those studying in private universities come from families whose income level places them in the three highest deciles, ie, 30% richer. On the other hand, only 5.69% of students in private universities from the three lowest deciles, ie the poorest 30%. The remaining 25.91% is in the middle deciles.

The pattern is repeated in the secondary school level. A 77.03% of students in private schools comes from the three upper deciles, while only 0.29% comes from the bottom three deciles and a 22.68 in the intermediates. At school, the percentages almost repeat: a 76.46% of private school students from 30% richer a 3.71% of the poorest 30% and 19.83% of the intermediates.

general conclusions one could argue based on this statistical information on average two thirds of those currently studying in private institutions are not likely to have trouble paying the tax is proposed, given the level of family income. From this perspective, the tax is progressive.

However there is another third may well be affected, especially at the university level, because in high school be exempted from taxation to the monthly payments less than ¢ 110,000. Be taken into account to that group in the debate of the proposed reform.

And what does the survey on public education? In 2009, 49.16% of public school students came from the bottom 3 deciles, a 39.81% of intermediate and 11.03% of the 3 higher. At school, things start to turn around, since only 39.85% of public schools comes from the poorest 30% (and I suspect that this number was higher before they advance the agenda Venture), 45, 38% intermediate and 14.78% from 30% richer. And finally in the public universities turns the tables: only 8.25% of those studying in public universities come from families whose income is classified in the bottom 3 deciles, a 32.42% of intermediate and 59.32% of families whose income ranks them within the 30% richest.

These are the numbers. There is much to discuss about this situation, not only is a discussion on taxes. But if the tax reform that encourages debate, big time. Let us debate, yes, based on real information, not subjective perceptions.

Tweet