Get Schooled

By mb

August 29, 2005 11:31 AM | Link to this

I think this is a wondeful idea. You have Elderly people who no longer have children in the schools systems who are still paying property taxes and then on the flip side you have Apartment dwellers who will live in Apartments all their life and never pay property tax. I feel that it could help some get a bigger home without feeling the burden of Property taxes it could also be a relief to those who have a burden when paying property taxes. This would be a fair situation for all involved. We desperately need all the help that we can get with the school funding here in GA and to me this is the correct answer.

By DB

August 29, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

I always thought the tenants pay property tax indirectly by paying the rent, which makes the landlord able to pay the taxes. If they live in a big apartment building, they may just pay less property taxes. The people it’s really going to benefit are those that own homes as permanent residents, which is a good thing if you ask me. Also, people coming through GA as tourists will also help pay for our education that way. I don’t think a 2.2% sales tax is going to make all that much different for the poor, especially since those that are that poor are probably receiving food stamps or income from the state anyway. The extra money saved by homeowners will end up in extra spending in the long run, which may decrease the prices and help the poor even more if you think of it from an economic point of view. Or it could do the opposite, which is to make things more expensive.

I don’t think it’s a bad idea. I see no reason why not to try it, and if it doesn’t work, go back to the old way.

By RF

August 29, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

I think this is definitely a much fairer way to locally fund schools, but it will hurt districts like mine where there isn’t much beyond the basics commercially and everyone travels 15-20 miles to other counties to shop at Wal-Mart and other large stores. Once again, the metro area will flourish and the poorer counties won’t be able to keep up. This is definitely fairer than property taxes, but how would we balance the scales?—currently an issue of court debate in this state.

By Robert

August 29, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this

Horrible, horrible. Why is this Country going backwards to a regressive tax system?

Yes, a sales tax hits everyone, but should it be so? The theory is that owners are the more “wealthy” compared to those that rent and so they can afford to pay more taxes. By going backwards and saying that everyone will pay the same (through sales tax), it hits the poorer folks the hardest. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Are we saying that poor people shouldn’t buy milk? Maybe that only the wealthy should afford the milk? How ridiculous!!!

If you truely want to tax those that use the services, then only those with children should pay State taxes since the vast majority of it goes toward education. And, you could even argue that the married people should also pay taxes since they may have children that need to be educated. Don’t tax the single folks!

By RF

August 29, 2005 12:45 PM | Link to this

Actually Robert, the sales tax system could work. Is it fair that wealthy property owners who don’t have kids in a particular school system are paying property taxes to support the schools? The only way the poor would suffer is that they would have to help pay for what has been basically free to them since God was a boy. It won’t happen because school systems would be very, very scared to take the chance. But if it did, I think it would tax the rich just as much as property taxes do because they have the most to spend. The poor would be only be paying according to what they have to spend. I think that’s fair.

By t

August 29, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

I think that school funds should come from sales taxes. Education is a community responsibility and I think that instead of always lowering the bar we should raise the bar, even for those who would be considered low income. I think that we often make excuses for lower income earners instead of trying to make them more fiscally responsible. The only exception should be the elder. I think those who are considered elderly should be exempt from either sides of the school tax debate.

By Lynne

August 29, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

FYI - Apartment dwellers do pay property taxes. It is incorporated into their monthy rent and the property owner pays the taxes directly.

By Jake

August 29, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

None of the tax schemes are “fair”, in the sense that people who do not directly benefit, i.e., do not have children in public school, are paying for them. Property tax is certainly a component of rent. Renters may pay a lot less than homeowners, but they pay more in state and federal taxes since they don’t have the mortgage interest deduction. The theory is that education, like police and fire services, benefits the entire community and, therefore, should be paid for by the property owners. I agree. Either eliminate public schools altogether and let everyone pay for the education they want, or leave well enough alone.

By Robin

August 29, 2005 01:16 PM | Link to this

There is no going back if it doesn’t work. If the sales tax were to not work they would just reinstate property taxes and keep the same sales tax. TAXES are never rescinded.

By Gary

August 29, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Funding based on sales taxes would be a disaster, because the amount collected could vary tremendously year to year. A tax based on property value and on income is steady and predictable. A sales tax would disproportionately affected lower-income families. Atlanta families with less than, say, $50,000 annual income spend virtually all of it. Housing payments eat up a huge part. The rest is spent on utilities, food, clothing, and other necessities. Therefore, everything they earn is nailed with the 23% proposed tax, except for housing. The wealthy, on the other hand, do not have to eat or drink any more, and would tend to invest rather than spend. Their wealth would grow but their contribution to public good would diminish. Sure, of course the rich will spend more than do the poor, but not as much as they presently do.

By RF

August 29, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

I can honestly say, as much as I hate seeing my property taxes increase each year, I think a 23% sales tax to support schools would be ridiculous! And where are the revenues all the commercial growth was supposed to bring metro counties? Is it just me, or do taxes go up AFTER Wal-Mart builds in the area? Counties give so many incentives and services to attract commercial growth that they end up losing money and must take it from the individual property owners to make up the difference. There is no tax plan that will fully fund schools without adjustment, but I am certainly tired of watching my property assessment go up every year while the value doesn’t…

By Ernest

August 29, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

We need to look no further at various SPLOSTs to see that they don’t bring in the ‘anticipated’ revenue. I agree somewhat with Robert that this is as regressive tax system that could have ‘unintended consequences’ on those who have the least. As a property owner, would like some relief so maybe we can find a way to have some combination of both.

By b. white

August 29, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

Alabama schools have had to enforce proration almost every year due to the fact that their schools are funded with sales tax. Due to the recent economic down turn several years ago many teachers lost their jobs and many extracurricular activities were cut just to keep the school afloat. Alabama has the lowest property taxes of almost any southern state, but refuse to raise them to help the schools. Are you sure this it is a good idea to fund schools with tax revenue???????

By Meg

August 29, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

I like it! Since a large burden is educating the childen of illegal immigrants, and they live several families to a house or apartment, they’re not really contributing fairly, if at all, but with a sales tax they would have to contribute at least something in one of the areas in which they’re costing us a lot. (Medical care is the other area.) Let them pay a little toward the schools when they buy jr that copy of grand theft auto! Since I have a lot of kids I spend a lot, so it would work out similar to the property tax for us, and it would be more fair for most people, since the more kids you have the more you spend.

By Parent

August 29, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

As a homeowner, I would love for my taxes to go down. Yet, as a citizen of my community who realizes the necessity for public education and other services that are directly paid for through property taxes, I say NO to the Sales Tax idea. As Ernest stated, the only way this would work (at all) would be to combine the two taxes. Say, raise the sales tax by 2-3% and then lower the millage rates once a sizable reserve has been created in each jurisdiction. That way, everyone pays a little (including tourists) and there would be a safety net to keep from losing programs that are already in place. It is all of our responsibility to pay for schools and other such necessary services. Even if you do send your children to private school. Schools are for the betterment of the community. I guarantee you that if you are trying to buy or sell a house, any prospective buyer is going to want to know about the schools. Thus, it benefits us all to support our schools. Yeah, I may have to pay a little more in taxes, but I know that little Johnny down the street is getting a better education and should not become a burden upon me as a non-producing citizen later.

By David

August 29, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

Funding education with a sales tax would be a wonderful change to the property tax method. A sales tax would level the tax field among all income ranges. If everyone is paying the same percentage how can anyone say that is unfair? Seven cents out of everyone’s dollar leaves everyone with ninety-three cents to spend.

Only people who desire to punish wealthy people for their hard work earning money could object. I don’t believe anyone should be punished for earning as much money as possible.

By Sly

August 29, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

Poor people don’t pay taxes. In fact they receive tax money from guys like me who bust butt to pay them their monthly check. The sales tax method is definitely the best way to tax, but it’ll never happen because the transition to it won’t work. Then we’ll have 2 tax systems in place. Robin’s right on.

By SWC

August 29, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

While I heartily support the “Fair Tax” on the federal level, which eliminates the income tax and replaces it with a sales tax (which rebates money to everyone to cover basic needs), I think that replacing the property tax with a sales tax is a terrible idea. First of all, Georgians will stop shopping in Georgia whem possible and go to border states with a lower sales tax to buy their big ticket items (or shop on- line). The only way that I would agree with a tax like this would be if it mimicked the Federal “fair tax” proposals and eliminated the state income tax. There is not guarantee that property taxes will drop when they raise sales taxes. It will end up being another tax on top of everything else. Also, I completely understand the desire to get tax dollars from those groups who are a huge strain on the system - especially illegal immigrants, but the best way end that burden is to enforce the laws and deport them. Or rewrite the laws to allow documented guest workers. And control “starter home” development in overburdened counties.

By homeowner1

August 29, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

I’m truly torn on this issue. I own a house and would LOVE some tax relief. I live in the city of Atlanta and Fulton county, so I pay quite a bit in property taxes. However, I also get tax relief through using that as a write off. If I paid at the register, I wouldn’t get that as a tax write-off anymore. No one seems to be talking about that yet. As a teacher, I know that having a changing amount of money to use for schools for each county could potentially be devastating if the econonmy turns for the worse. Plus, it would be nearly impossible to convince people to add on an additional sales tax to fund badly needed programs, which counties often have to rely on. So, where would they raise that money? Would it come in a property tax increase? We have to pay for the schools, so I worry if we decide to move that to a funding source (sales tax) that is variable based upon the economy. Are we going to tell our children “sorry, but the economy is in a downturn so no textbooks his year”? Although Fulton county needs to quit changing their curriculum and thus changing their need for new textbooks and we might be able to save enough money to pay for the real needs of our students! I hope people think long and hard about this before voting on it. The schools have to be paid for, but is the right answer to put in in a variable funding source? That’s probably not where Georgia wants to go when we are already at the bottom of the pile in education. If the true purpose of this change in the funding is to make everyone pay for educating our children, then there might be other ways to consider before we move to an unstable funding source. Also, as is big in education, perhaps we should look to other states for their experiences, which I have not heard are successful. What is a county to do when the economy turns sour and we have to pay the teachers, pay the various bills, and pay for the books for our kids and we don’t have it to spend? But again, I’d love some tax relief. How about targeting another group like the people who don’t pay their taxes or some other ways to reduce spending like not changing the curriculum every two years requiring the purchase of thousands of expensive textbooks? That might be a better way to REDUCE spending rather than moving the tax burden.

By invested

August 29, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

The AJC itself just published an article online about how fulton county tax assessors are not taxing land owners properly in the Metro section. Perhaps we could consider this proposal LONG after the various counties have tax assessors who aren’t in bed with builders and others trying to get a tax free status. If everyone is paying a fair tax, then we can take another look at how to fund our schools based upon property taxes. Or, hey, here’s an idea, maybe we’ll get tax relief when the people running the tax assessor’s office stop giving so many perks to certain people and fairly assess everyone.

By E. Lewis

August 29, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

It doesn’t matter to me where the taxes and funding come from. It all originates from my pocket anyways. What gets me are the people who preach the evils of property taxes yet don’t have a solution for gathering revenue from other sources. Do we increase sales taxes which are some of the most regressive? Do we simply cut property taxes and funding for schools? Whether it’s a property tax, income tax, sales tax, increase in drivers license fees, etc., you still have to pay it. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s still money out of your pocket no matter what the government calls it.

By CA

August 29, 2005 05:26 PM | Link to this

I am completely confused by the idea mentioned by several here that those without children should not have to pay a school tax. I don’t drive, therefore, none of my taxed should go toward roads, only sidewalks. Oh but wait, I do benefit from roads. Food is delivered to my grocery store by truck. I may someday need the help of a firetruck or ambulance.

I agree that there should be property tax relief for certain owners, including elderly on fixed incomes, not because they no longer have children, but because their income does not go up along with property values — most of us on salary do get raises as those values and costs of living increase. I believe Georgia already has laws providing some relief for that group. A regressive tax, however, is simply unfair and an unstable source of revenue — if sales go down, revenues go down. And by the way, what ever happened to the pro-small government/local rule republican party? Their leader in the House wants to mandate a statewide school start date and centralize school system funding?! Sounds like big bad intrusive government to me…

By Kim

August 30, 2005 09:15 AM | Link to this

Like Alabama, Oregon also changed to a straight sales tax funding method. A couple of years ago they had to close the schools early in the spring because they could no longer afford to keep them open, due to an economic downturn. Complete reliance on a sales tax for a huge, recurring expense like education is a recipe for disaster. If the state really does want to give taxpayers property tax relief, then reduce the millage slightly and create a smaller sales tax to offset that. Honestly, I think this is really just a way to kill public schools by “starving the beast.”

By smartman

August 30, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

To clear up the rental issue vs school tax. All property owners pay school tax. Period. It does not matter if the property is rented or owned….at the end of the year a school tax is paid by that property owner.

Moving on. I do not like property tax at all for any reason. No person should lose their property because of taxation. Taxing property is the way Kings and Queens controlled the masses. Are we so stupid in America today that we do not see the problems associated with property tax????????

Our country was set up to run on a sales tax basis and did so very well for about 150 years. Property tax and income tax is a recent invention of stupid people lead around by the nose by corruupt politicians.

GO FAIR TAX GO

By Tessie

August 30, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

**”Yes, a sales tax hits everyone, but should it be so? The theory is that owners are the more “wealthyâ€? compared to those that rent and so they can afford to pay more taxes. By going backwards and saying that everyone will pay the same (through sales tax), it hits the poorer folks the hardest. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Are we saying that poor people shouldn’t buy milk? Maybe that only the wealthy should afford the milk? How ridiculous!!!”**

Robert…are you truly that dense? I can not believe I even have to write this………..but here goes…….The more a person makes the more a person spends….HENCE, the more tax a person will pay. “Poor” people buy less, “Rich” people buy more …HENCE, The “Rich” will pay more in school tax…..Duh!

Education benefits EVERYONE. Employers need educated workers. The public needs educated workers. I have no problem funding eduaction. I do want the money spent wisely and for the (most) part, it is.

I think it fair for individuals to pay school tax for two generations of children. After that, you have completed your debt to society. Those that home school or send their children to private school should be exempt from public school tax for the period of time they are paying directly for their childs education.

By Mary

August 30, 2005 10:48 AM | Link to this

I have a problem with paying a tax on something I’ve already paid for. Yes, public schools are a must today, but how about they spend the money they get from the state on books and teachers rather than elaborate buildings that put most colleges to shame. Why spend all that money on fancy buildings other than egos of the administration! If we took all the ‘pork’ out of the education system along with disallowing any illegals attending, property taxes could come down without adding additional tax anywhere else.

By Smartestwomenalive

August 30, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

Fair Tax Fair Tax Fair Tax……Read the Book and then come back to the table educated on the issue.

“A couple of years ago they had to close the schools early in the spring because they could no longer afford to keep them open, due to an economic downturn.”

Fair question…..all you do in a situation like this is increase the sales tax %. This is exactly what happens now under the property tax system.

As someone noted above NO person should lose their HOME because of oweing the MAN taxes. Peoperty tax is communist system of government.

About 90% of the people do not understand how powerful a sales tax system is. Property tax is collect once a year and can only change once a year. Sales tax is collected daily and can be adjusted daily as the need dictates. Taxing sales allows one to tap into billions of dollars whereas property tax only allows tapping into a fix amount which is much less than sales.

For example…it is the same as with the income tax. Income in the US amounts to about 20% of the amount of sales. SO……….do we tax 800 billion dollars of income at 30% or do we tax 30 trillion in sales at 3%…..Hummmmmm….I’ll take the 3% sandwitch thank you very much.

By IlikeMeg

August 30, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

BINGO MEG…..now there is a smart cookie.

“Since a large burden is educating the childen of illegal immigrants, and they live several families to a house or apartment, they’re not really contributing fairly, if at all, but with a sales tax they would have to contribute at least something in one of the areas in which they’re costing us a lot. (Medical care is the other area.) Let them pay a little toward the schools when they buy jr that copy of grand theft auto!”

“That’s probably not where Georgia wants to go when we are already at the bottom of the pile in education”

Maybe at your school. But honey….it ain’t got nothing to do with money.

“Poor people don’t pay taxes. In fact they receive tax money from guys like me who bust butt to pay them their monthly check.”

Well, let’s say they do not pay their fair share.

“The sales tax method is definitely the best way to tax, but it’ll never happen because the transition to it won’t work”

The transition would be very simple. Just changed the % in the tax registers and boom, it’s a done deal.

“Alabama schools have had to enforce proration almost every year due to the fact that their schools are funded with sales tax. Due to the recent economic down turn several years ago many teachers lost their jobs and many extracurricular activities were cut just to keep the school afloat.”

Easy fix….All good ole Alabama had to do was just add another tick to the cash register and it’s a done deal….Hey, didn’t I say that before?

By DB

August 30, 2005 11:15 AM | Link to this

Poor people are poor not because they are taxed to poverty. They are poor for other reasons, and a 2.2% tax will not make them any worse off. Also, poor people hardly ever own property, so if this tax were put into effect, the rent that poor people pay may very well become cheaper because the landlords are having to pay much less property tax. So the argument that such a tax will hurt the poor is not realistic. Also, there are plenty of programs for poor people, one of them being a free education. I am tired of seeing the hardworking, middle class pay for most everything. A middle class family that owns one house is the most effected by this any way you look at it. A sales tax would give rural schools better funding and urban schools adequate funding at the same time.

By DB

August 30, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

My property taxes in Fulton County dropped from last year, so it’s not like taxes aren’t ever rescinded. If the housing bubble bursts, there is chance for decreased tax revenue. Take for instance my previous home in Western NY where a $40,000 house is taxed at about $3200 per year. If you want to talk about putting more stress on poor people, that’s a prime example. It’s nothing more than about 30 houses paying for a whole school, and people wonder why everyone’s moving South.

By DB

August 30, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

I agree with Mary in that most the education money is wasted on things other than educating our kids. And I will go further to say that the money educating our kids is wasted as long as we allow the disruptive kids to stay in the classroom and cater to the moron parents.

By DB

August 30, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

The few disruptive students and enabling parents ruin it for the rest.

By E. Lewis

August 30, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

Property taxes where I live are some of the lowest in the country. Hurray if you are a homeowner and a double hurray if you can afford a lot of land. Unfortunately our sales tax which is regressive tax is at 10%. Our public schools are also some of the worst. If you are poor, that is a double whammy.

By CA

August 30, 2005 11:37 AM | Link to this

Tessie, while you are correct that the rich will pay more in actual dollars, poor people will be harder hit because they will be taxed a higher percentage of what they earn, because the more money a person has the lower the percentage of what they earn that must be spent. Necessary purchases (food, clothing, that gallon of milk) may eat up 90% of a poorer family’s spendable income after rent, utilities, etc. are paid, but only 30% of a richer family’s. Although they mostly likely will spend beyond that 30%, the rich family probably will not spend another 60% of their income on sales taxable items, choosing instead to save or invest at least some of the money. In other words, the rich can choose to lower their taxes by spending less on frivolous items, but as Robert pointed out, the poor cannot choose to stop buying food.

By DB

August 30, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

Also, keep in mind that the stories of Alabama and Oregon aren’t necessarily a direct result of sales tax paying for education. Many factors such as fiscal responsibility and “pork barrel” economics also play a major factor. Maybe this tax would force our schools to become more fiscally responsible!!!!! I would love that. The old cliche, “All you need is a good teacher and a chalkboard” come into play here. Doesn’t anyone find it odd that we dump outrageous amounts of money into education and see no real improvement? The answer to improving education is not money. So we might as well save some property owners money.

By DB

August 30, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

How about we put a dollar tax on every gallon of fuel sold? That would solve many problems. It would promote efficient vehicles, slow global warming, decrease urban air pollution and therefore decrease the incidence of many diseases, etc. It would also decrease our demand for foreign oil. Need I go there? All of this would make the price of gas drop and maybe allow them to end up at the same price as now. No, let’s not even think about sales taxes or gas taxes. Let’s just keep padding the pockets of politicians through property taxes, and let’s keep wasting money on education.

By Margaret

August 30, 2005 12:58 PM | Link to this

Please take this tax burden off me! My property tax has doubled in the past 5 years - while my salary has gone down. I have two children in private schools and receive no direct benefit from the county school system. The concept of a fiscally responsible county school board is very attractive to me! I can’t understand why, even with the windfall of large increass in assessments, there is ANY talk of needing to raise more money for schools in Dekalb. The cost of public education should be shared equally - the results of the education process are going to be shared regardless. I’ll vote for anyone who supports this - even if it’s Cynthia!

By Eddie

August 30, 2005 01:09 PM | Link to this

The solution is simple. Tax the parents.

No tax deduction after the second child.

Ten cents per disposable diaper.

Twenty cents per can of formula.

Double the current sales tax for toys, children’s cloths, school supplies, video games, etc. Ban Barny and his ilk from the airwaves.

$3,000 tax on mini-vans.

$50 tax on baby buggies.

And so forth. After a while the stay at home moothers will give up and gain some sense. After a while more we’ll have a surplus of everything that is in short supply if we can just deep the six the notion that everyone has to perform a DNA experiment.

And, no, your cute little one won’t cure cancer. Most likely s/he’ll wind up asking folks if they want to “supersize that value meal.”

By ps

August 30, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

I haven’t read anything about those of us who pay to send our kids to private schools because the schools in our neiborhoods are so “poor” academically. So, we pay “twice” to give our children a better education in a “safe” environment. No matter how much we keep giving the county…our schools just don’t seem to see the improvements. I’m not rich “AT ALL” I work 2 part-time jobs to invest in my children future. I say take the government out of our pockets and out of the business of educating our children all together.

By george

August 30, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

As a property owner after I do the math I prefer the property tax method for school funding. If there were a 2 to 3% sales tax on all goods and services my wife and I would end up paying about $700 more in taxes a year over what we currently pay in property taxes and the property tax itself would not be completely eliminated. Do the math, look at how much you spend and add 2.5% and compare that to your current property tax.

By Boortz

August 30, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

CA….I am glad you pointed that out….but not for the reason you think. Please please please go get a copy of the Fair Tax and all your issues will be answered. The poor will wind up paying zero in tax because under a sales tax system necessities like food, clothing, etc. are not taxed. Smartwomen gave the answer…..since sales far out range income and even property tax the tax rate can be lowered. The sales tax system deals with a much larger pot of money.

Please please do not let others scare you….read The Fair Tax Book.

By Risch

August 30, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

George….based on State sales reciept numbers the school tax portion of the sales tax would be only about .52%. Not 2 to 3%. You need to redo your numbers.

“and the property tax itself would not be completely eliminated”

Not sure I follow that statement.

Also….if someone spent $500 a week….using your 2% figure that would only equate to $520 a year. Not sure I follow your thought process…..or else your a big spender….which you could be. But use the .52% figure and get back with us.

By Big Daddy

August 30, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

“I haven’t read anything about those of us who pay to send our kids to private schools.”

“Those that home school or send their children to private school should be exempt from public school tax for the period of time they are paying directly for their childs education.”

PS….Tassie did address that issue and I agree with her.

By The Brain

August 30, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Retail Strong in Georgia By Kyle Hensel, MBA

With retail sales totaling over $3.75 trillion in 2003,

There is your answer. Tax that number by 1/2 percent and schools will be just fine. (Remember….2003 was a down year also)

Sales figures for 2004 are project to be much higher.

By SWC

August 30, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

CA: where did you hear this: “Their (Republicans)leader in the House wants to mandate a statewide school start date and centralize school system funding?!”

I wish it were true. A uniform school calendar where all students were off from June through August benefits the economy to the tune of $2.5 BILLION dollars a year. That money could be used to supplement education funding AND reduce property taxes. Sometimes it is necessary for “big government” to step in if the local districts are implementing policies (however well-intentioned) that are robbing us blind.

By george

August 30, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

Risch the 2% figure was pulled from the 2 to 3% people on here wwere saying that they were willing to pay in sales tax compared to the property tax. The number I used to figure the total tax paid was on mandatory monthly bills and not discretionary spending, if that was taken into consideration the amount paid out in taxes would be even higher.

As for property taxes not being completely eliminated, schools are not the only thing funded by property tax. Other things included are fire protection, solid waste disposal and so on.

By SWC

August 30, 2005 04:22 PM | Link to this

DB: How about we put a dollar tax on every gallon of fuel sold? That would solve many problems. That’s a great idea. Only people who own cars and don’t have access to MARTA will pay taxes. Our economy will go down the tubes as consumer spending declines, and unemployment reaches record levels. Delta airlines will go into certain bankruptcy and Atlanta, whose economy depends on Delta, will go down the tubes with it. But we’ll all be breathing easier and there won’t be too many of those annoying minivans on the road. Brilliant.

By Peterson

August 30, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

George…only retail sales items would be taxed. What are you defining as mandatory monthly bills?

And yes, we are talking about the school portion of your property tax only.

Big Daddy has the right idea….but the wrong figure….GA retail sales were about 120 billion last year. He quoted what looks like to be US figures. But the system works regardless. (Notice I did not use the word…irregardless……and you know why? Because there is no such word. The word is irrespective.)

By CA

August 30, 2005 05:31 PM | Link to this

Thanks you for your comments, Boortz. I will pick up a copy of the fair tax book. I do want to caution you, though, to remember that whatever plan this Fair Tax book lays out (whether good or bad) will not necessarily be the plan that the state legislature would put in place. So for all of you who think the sales tax is a good idea, if it does go into to effect, keep an eye on those lawmakers and make sure they do it right. As others have pointed out, it hasn’t worked well in other states, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t. After all, Florida’s plan for funding education with a lottery was a disaster, while Georgia’s resulted in the HOPE scholarship PLUS funding for lower grades, high school, and voc/tech ed. That said, I still think going to sales tax only is a very bad idea, but I’ll read the Fair Tax book and see if it changes my mind.

SWC, Rep. Jerry Keen (as well as Sen. Tommy Williams, I believe) has talked about mandating that school start a certain week. I think no earlier than Aug 25 and no later than the day after Labor Day, but I’m not sure. I don’t know if they have submitted bills yet, but if they haven’t, I know that they do plan to. I agree that there is a time for big government, but to me, this is not it. Many educators, students, and parents feel earlier start dates and year round schedules help learning and work well for their communities — who’s to say that a group of part-time legislators know what’s best for every community? It’s shocking how little influence educators have on education, and I have a big problem with the number of policy changes dictated by state and national politicians trying to court particular groups of voters. Most of them haven’t entered a classroom since they graduated. So there’s my eight cents…

By Pauly

August 30, 2005 06:56 PM | Link to this

I want to make sure I have this correct…

A tax that spreads the burden over the entire populace is “regressive.”

A tax that places the burden selectively based on the fact that they make more than others is “progressive.”

I’d rather regress.

By Lee

August 30, 2005 07:32 PM | Link to this

Bottom line, we’ve got to fund schools somehow. The property tax and sales tax options both have good and bad points…probably depending on if you’re a land owner or not.

My biggest problem with schools is the waste and inconsistent spending priorities.

They will build a new school and let the old one sit empty because they can get money from the state to build a new school, but cannot get the money for remodeling.

They will spend millions on a new football stadium while students across the county are sitting in trailers.

They buy new desks, books, equipment, etc. and throw away usable items simply because they have the money in the budget.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture. But hey, as long as little Johnny’s getting A’s and B’s and the football team is winning, everything is okay…. right??

By James

August 31, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

I certainly feel sales tax is the only fair tax. However, I will only support (like I have a choice) a code that has no loopholes or exemptions. If you buy you pay—else how can the code be fair??!! I am also concerned with loss of revenue when conventions choose Jacksonville or Charlotte because of sales tax differences.

By Meg

August 31, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

I don’t really see a sales tax penalizing anyone so much as forcing them to budget better. Every year when our mortgage goes up a $100 a month because of property taxes, we have to work around that, but if I go to the store to buy groceries or household items, and the sales tax is .5 or 2% more, and I have a $100, it’s far easier for me to leave off a bag of chips (and healthier) than to have my mortgage climb every year. I’m still spending $100, I’m just leaving off something frivolous. It makes budgeting an immediate concern that I adjust to immediately. The climbing mortgage is a lot harder to work around. Oh, and thanks, Ilikemeg!

By bruce

August 31, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

why not charge a tuition like at college if i dont have kids why pay if i have 5 kids i pay my fare share if i can tpay my kids way through school plan ahead or use birth control

By Josecanusee

August 31, 2005 02:00 PM | Link to this

“why not charge a tuition like at college if i dont have kids why pay if i have 5 kids i pay my fare share if i can tpay my kids way through school plan ahead or use birth control”

This may not be such a bad idea.

I think we do have a huge problem with people having children they can not afford. Not to pick on a certain group but certain cultures (Mexicans), have little respect for society at large and spit out children like they are popcorn. Hey, Juan, ease up on the baby factory. Not only do the schools suffer but also the hospitals that have to give away services to illegals at everyone elses expense.

By Dennis

August 31, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

I taught for 33 years, had 5 children in public schools and eventually owned my house.

Why do we never discuss what’s fair to the homeowner or non-homeowner, the rich or the poor, about how to pay for another fighter plane or aircraft carrier or interstate highway?

Aren’t the kids (the future of this country) of more importance, enough so that we should pay whatever is necessary by whatever means to see that they are adequately educated?

Some of you folks let the politicians (and some editorial writers) bamboozzle you too much over how to pay for education and that you’re paying too much for it - what’s fair and unfair and to whom, but they never ask what you think when it comes to those fighter planes, ships and highways - they just sock it to you.

The best bargain in this country is public education and had it ever been properly funded in the first place, which it isn’t and never has been, we wouldn’t need all of this talk about vouchers, and charter and private schools.

Give me a choice of spending my money for public education rather than giving tax breaks to the military-industrial complex and I’ll chose public education.

And I say this with a little humor, but not totally - if there was any chance of finding enough money to improve classroom education by cutting out football, well…I can see you digging into your pockets right now.

Bet’cha!!!

By David

August 31, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Dennis…….spoken like a true liberal.

However, without the military-industrial complex perhaps we would not have “free” education or we might not be “free” to be speaking out on this subject.

By John

August 31, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

I think increasing the sales tax to pay for schools and eliminating the property tax to pay for schools is a great idea and should be implemented as soon as possible. A family with 2-3 children in the school system will pay more of their fair share and a single person who does not have, nor has never had a child in the school system, will get some relief. Sure sounds fair to me.

By Dennis

August 31, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

What good is a military-industrial complex if we can’t first provide educated people to work in them?

I’m just saying that given the tax history of this country, public education has always been a political football in which the kids lose out to the military-industrial complex because of inadequate funding.

(And those who control the tax purse strings just can’t accept the fact that kids aren’t an assembly line product).

I pay property tax as well as sales tax, and I’m willing to pay more for both “if” it goes to public education.

By Dennis

August 31, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Would your position be then, that a person who does not have children in public school and never has had, does not still benefit from public schools?

And if they do benefit, should they not also help pay for public schools - where many of your future doctors, lawyers, etc., (should you ever need one) come from?