I understand your point. However, I am currently paying for the education of children that I don't have. If somebody with a child gets a "serious tax deduction" to compensate for the fact that they have decided to provide a better education for their children, why shouldn't I get a "serious tax deduction" to compensate for the fact that I don't have any children to educate?
In other words, a home-schooler is paying twice for the education of one child. I am paying once for the education of one child. The kicker is, I have no child to educate. My unfair tax burden is identical to the home-schooler's. Why shouldn't I get equal consideration?
Folks, it is a beautiful day, and I have to get out of my cave for awhile. My bicycle is beckoning...
I'm not saying that you shouldn't. To be honest, I haven't really thought much about it. I did not home school, but I did make a lot of sacrifices to pay for private school education because that was the only way I could feel confident that the school was supporting the values I spent the first 5 years instilling, not undermining them. It was also the only way that I felt that I was involved in the academic process and the provision of a quality education. I didn't trust the public schools any more than I would trust a convicted thief with access to my bank account. It got me really hacked when I was struggling to provide an education I couldn't really afford to know that the public school was dipping into my paycheck and absconding with money that I earned and very much needed myself.