ADVERTISEMENT

School funding

NickleDimer

NickleDimer

Post 'Til Your Fingers Bleed
Feb 7, 2002
38,067
1,766
113
Brightsidersville, USA
www.philly.com
SoP republicans are pushing a bill to eliminate property taxes as a source of school funding and instead raise income tax and sales tax to offset. An intriguing idea, if you're into redistributing wealth. What do our resident policy experts think of this idea?
 
Explain what that post means in terms of redistributing wealth? A sales tax is a consumption tax so how does your post make sense?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunkinTennisBalls
One might argue that property taxes are the ultimate redistribution of wealth seeing as only the wealthy can afford to own land and it can't be avoided in the ways that income tax can be.
 
How will good school X spend twice (per pupil) what crappy school Y spends under this system? You're taking funding for good schools and giving it to crappy schools. In PA, that means funneling towards crappy city schools. How will fancy district X get everyone ipads now if BIG state govt is determining their spending level? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not a contrarian post, DP. This kind of legislation raises the kind of discussions that we should be having: does the way we fund something make sense?
 
We all know that there are good public school and horrible ones. The bad ones are in the inner cities, where property ownership - and overall funding - is low. Most of these issues would be avoided if people lived by a simple premise: don't have kids unless you can afford to live in a house, in the suburbs, and/or private school.
 
Nd, you lost me and here is why: tax dollars are money citizens pay. So it's their money. A sales tax is a consumption tax, so that would certainly not qualify as redistribution as you laid out. You were wrong. Second, property taxes are paid by people who own more expensive homes. So again, that usually will be those with more money. An income tax would broaden the pool of those paying in but also impact those who pay more in taxes. Property taxes are local and support that communities schools. Please explain how that is redistribution more than current practice when you add a consumption tax as part of the payfor? Makes no sense. In most states, the lower tax districts also re ceive state funding to help offset lack of tax base.
 
Let me clarify my thoughts:

Currently you pay property taxes to fund your schools. It is controlled locally. It goes directly to your district. The state kicks in some funding on top of that.

The proposal is that you will pay increased income/sales tax. It all goes to the state, who then decides how much the entire funding for a district is.

So maybe redistribution of wealth isn't the best way to describe it. But it is centralizing what is now a local decision and will take funding away from wealthy school districts and give it to poorer ones.
 
Poorer districts already get subsidized from states as well. They aren't paying their fair share. This would reduce the burden on the weathly and make it more fare.
 
I don't know why the children of the poors need to go to school for free anyway.

This country needs more laborers and fewer philosophers/electrical engineers.
 
adp98 said:
Poorer districts already get subsidized from states as well. They aren't paying their fair share. This would reduce the burden on the weathly and make it more fare.
Click to expand...

PA is one of three states without an education funding formula. So the poor districts (read: Philly) are severely underfunded. PA is 41st out of 50 in % of local school funding from the state. High poverty districts average $3k less funding per student than an average district. $60k per classroom of 20 kids.

So presumably, funding would be even under the new plan.
 
The state funneling funds in NJ hasn't worked. Look at the Abbott schools in NJ. They are palaces in the ghetto
 
I'm confused, are you against redistribution or for it? Not having the benefit of reading the details, it seems the goal of this plan is to spread the pain of school to more people. You called this redistribution, which was wrong. Now it appears you argue for more redistribution to fund poorer school systems. You appear to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Do you want more redistribution to poorer schools or not? And do you like this plan and if not do you support current pa structure? If not, what would you propose? You're all over the place here. You appear to simply be bitching for the sake of bitching withour any original thoughts of your own or understanding the new proposals.please clarify as we all know you wouldn't just birch to be contray and absent ideas.
 
Not taking sides. Just trying to figure out what the impact of this change is and if it makes sense before I form an opinion. If you consider "redistribution" taking money from wealthier people/districts and giving it to poorer people/districts, then this appears to be what this would do if I understand it correctly.

What do you mean by "spreading the pain" to more people?
 
Property tax is paid by those who own property. Sales tax is paid by everyone who purchases a good. Income tax is paid by those who have income. So property taxes as the means to fund schools means a bunch of freeloaders are having those who own property in their district pay for their schools. From what you described, the new plan would spread to all taxpayers and even people who might not live in the district via a sales tax. Florida for instance does not have a state wage tax. They are a destination state so they have a sales tax that a bunch of people who choose to visit pay. It makes sense for them. A few states have a similar structure.
 
adp98 said:
Property tax is paid by those who own property. Sales tax is paid by everyone who purchases a good. Income tax is paid by those who have income. So property taxes as the means to fund schools means a bunch of freeloaders are having those who own property in their district pay for their schools.
Click to expand...

Right, but unless we're talking about subsidized public housing program residents, you are essentially paying property taxes in your rent.
 
And for the record, I have no issues paying my fair share to fund local schools. No kne forces me to live where I live. I did so for the benefit of my kids. Next year I'll have 3 in private school so I don't benefit from those dollars in a direct sense. However, it was choice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NickleDimer said:
Right, but unless we're talking about subsidized public housing program residents, you are essentially paying property taxes in your rent.
Click to expand...
No, my Tennant pays rent and I pay property taxes in a building of which I do not live or derive any services.
 
adp98 said:
No, my Tennant pays rent and I pay property taxes in a building of which I do not live or derive any services.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: HereComeTheCats
Back on topic, please answer my questions above. Love your thoughts on the 3 questions.
 
Do you support the current model oh how schools are funded in pa? If not, what would you propose and why?
 
Also, as you described, the local school board would still have control of all spending decisions. This is simply an adjustment to how money is collected. Regardless, please answer the specific questions as to what you support and why.
 
adp98 said:
Also, as you described, the local school board would still have control of all spending decisions. This is simply an adjustment to how money is collected. Regardless, please answer the specific questions as to what you support and why.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm not sure about. Would the local school board have control of spending levels or would that be dictated by the state? Seems like the state would control how much money they're giving to each district. Sure they could spend it however they see fit. But the current system at least has some flexibility to it, though districts now have to put budgets to a vote if their increase exceeds an inflationary index.
 
NickleDimer said:
Not sure which is best. Trying to figure that out.
Click to expand...
So you had the wrong initial characterization of redistribution, no clue of your own solution but free to throw stones at others bringing solutions.
 
That is rich coming from the resident contrarianian. By post was also accurate. You back-pedaled quickly.
 
Governor Wolfie wants hundreds of millions of dollars for "more education funding," otherwise known as "more money for the teacher's union who have him by the balls"

His solution? Tax the shit out of everything. Increase income tax, increase sales tax (and add a litany of new goods and services that are currently exempt from sales tax), tax the shit out of the Marcellus shale industry that is actually creating jobs and economic opportunity and that already pays a significant impact fee which is essentially a tax.

gr8 way to promote economic growth, but that's what you get when you elect a Socialist, I mean Democrat. Fortunately the state legislature is shutting him down.

So there we have it... over 4 months without a budget, a clinically insane attorney general holding the state hostage.... looks like my decision to become a former Democrat was the correct one.
 
Last edited:
Novacatt94 said:
gr8 way to promote economic growth, but that's what you get when you elect a Socialist,
Click to expand...

No idea whether or not Tom Wolf will end up handling the job of Governor well or not, but only a dolt would describe him as a "socialist".

The guy is a red-blooded capitalist if ever one was born. Has nothing to do necessarily with how he'll govern...but it's a fact.
 
RSTRICK30 said:
The guy is a red-blooded capitalist if ever one was born. Has nothing to do necessarily with how he'll govern...but it's a fact.
Click to expand...
Please expand on this. He's got all the warning signs of a limousine liberal:

1. Spent the first 14 years of adulthood pursuing liberal artist degrees.
2. Inherited his family's company, sold it, then "saved" it.
 
NickleDimer said:
Please expand on this. He's got all the warning signs of a limousine liberal:

1. Spent the first 14 years of adulthood pursuing liberal artist degrees.
2. Inherited his family's company, sold it, then "saved" it.
3. Has a beard.
Click to expand...

Fixed
 
So the proposal was in response to the gov overreach and plan to tax everything? Key component the OP failed to mention.

ND, do you support the wolfe's plan? If not, why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back